Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

Trilby · 08-01-2006, 08:11 AM

I know you are addressing wolf here, and I appreciate that--however, I've worked with homeless as well. I worked with them from the standpoint of admission to hospital interviews and then while they were on the ward (mental health/substance abuse ward). 99% of the homeless I saw preferred to remain homeless because: they valued the freedom to live their life they way they wanted to. Rules and regs at homeless shelters or halfway houses (and even the rules of the hosp. ward) were too much for them. They wanted to do what they wanted, when they wanted. They didn't like the fact that meals and snacktimes and cigarette breaks were scheduled--if they wanted a snack at 2:30 in the morning (not a 'snack time' via hosp. rules) they WANTED IT! NOW! If they wanted a cigarette the moment they woke up--they expected to have it, regardless of ward rules. If they wanted 15X the amount of medicine they were prescribed they wanted it--NOW! And, so on. They would intimidate, threaten, and even one that I witnessed became violent and broke a tech's thumb over a cigarette. Homeless shelters do not have to put up with this sort of behavior and they simply kick them out, which, is fine with them, now they can smoke/drink/use to their hearts content. We've tent cities in Dayton (well hidden, in woods by the Miami river) and social worker outreach people go into them to try to assess the human need and see if anybody wants to get help--like mental health help, help with getting on their feet, subs. abuse help---routinely, these workers are run out of the tent city. The homeless KNOW who they are, so they are not threatened by these (ususally) female workers, they just don't want to have anything to do with mainstream society.

I have seen motivated homeless on Oprah. And, for the most part, homeless teens are motivated to improve their situations.

As for playing the system-no one, NO ONE is better at it than substance abusers and the mentally ill. Mentally ill does not equal stupid.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2006, 09:40 AM

There always was and will be, homeless, vagrants, bums, drifters, con-men, destitutes, poor, nuts, rugged individualists and wackos.
It's really hard to sort out individuals and their unique circumstances when you're in the unenviable position of making policy/rules to cover the non-mainstream crowd.

We (notice: we, meaning the general consensus from which you may opt out), want a safety net to catch the people who are in need. But we don't want the net to become a comfy hammock.
We don't want to be played for a sucker by people using the safety net as an entitlement, just another resource to supplement their income, or a reason not to try help themselves.
We perceived so much abuse of the welfare system, at least anecdotally, we're skeptical of everyone claiming to need help.

Logically, the best place to make individual assessments is on the local level, one on one, if you will. So they tried that, and found giving that money and power to some people, created petty power brokers that abused the system and the people it was supposed to help.

Then the pendulum swung back to making hard and fast rules at the state or federal level. That doesn't work either....every case is different and any time there are strict rules, there's a back-alley lawyer figuring out how to play the rules for their benefit.... beat the system. Of course, these cheats are the ones that make the papers, rather than the ones that are truly helped.

Brianna and Wolf described a group/behavior pattern that will always be a problem. There's another problem group, that they'll never see (professionally), because it avoids any contact with any institutions if it can.

In a democracy, you can't help people unless they want to be helped.
The trick is to provide help to those that want and need it, without being conned..... or enabling failure.
No. I don't have a solution.... just trying to clarify the problem.

Food in the park or food at the shelter?
There will always be some individualists that will go hungry and some that will never go hungry, either way.

It appears Vegas is being petty with a specific rule to thwart one samaritan, but this woman is throwing a monkey wrench in their program. Whether their program is sound or has a hidden agenda is beside the point. It's their plan to handle their problem and she doesn't have the right to screw it up. If she wants to change it, there are avenues for change, but if she wants to buck the system she has to be willing to pay a price, as all protesters have done.

Spexxvet · 08-01-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree with much of what you say. But there has to be a way to help those who want to be and can be helped. And for those who can't be or don't want to be helped, what do "we" do? Bri and Wolf say that they would rather be homeless, and I accept that at face value. Maggie says to let them be homeless, just don't be homeless around her, because when we try to help, it's seldom helpful, and it costs more than she's willing to pay.
What do you do when leaving the situation alone is unacceptable, but changes would be unacceptable.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

snip~ What do you do when leaving the situation alone is unacceptable, but changes would be unacceptable.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"

The only solution I can come up with, is provide the help needed to those that will accept it and don't meddle with people that won't, but are not a danger to society.

I'll admit that's not a warm and fuzzy be all, end all, but it's the best I can think of without trampling all over people's rights.

Spexxvet · 08-01-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"

The only solution I can come up with, is provide the help needed to those that will accept it and don't meddle with people that won't, but are not a danger to society.

I'll admit that's not a warm and fuzzy be all, end all, but it's the best I can think of without trampling all over people's rights.

I'm not necessarily looking for warm and fuzzy. Are we at the point where nobody can even offer a suggestion? Ok, as king of the world

, I'll start.

If it is determined that someone wants to be a productive member of society, they are put into a system that provides food, clothing shelter, for a limited time, until they can survive on their own. At the same time, minimum wage is increased until it is enough to survive on.

If it is determined that someone can never be a productive member of society, due to mental or physical issues, they are put into a system that provides food, clothing shelter for the rest of their life. Not optional. The loss of some of their freedoms is in exchange for not being a productive member of society, and not being left to die on their own. Gotta keep those loonies off the grass!

If it is determined that someone doesn't want to be a productive member of society, is "playing the system", they will be severely punished, maybe even forced to be a productive member of society, in an incarcerated sort of way.

Let the discussion begin!

MaggieL · 08-01-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Let the discussion begin!

Sure is an awful lot of passive voice in that post...which is always a red flag where bureaucrats are involved. When you say "it is determined"...who is making this determination and by what criteria?

That should employ a substantial pile of the aformentioned apparatchiks.

I'm starting to flashback on the Velvet Monkey Wrench. Or Coventry

Spexxvet · 08-01-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

... 99% of the homeless I saw preferred to remain homeless because: they valued the freedom to live their life they way they wanted to. Rules and regs at homeless shelters or halfway houses (and even the rules of the hosp. ward) were too much for them. They wanted to do what they wanted, when they wanted. They didn't like the fact that meals and snacktimes and cigarette breaks were scheduled--if they wanted a snack at 2:30 in the morning (not a 'snack time' via hosp. rules) they WANTED IT! NOW! If they wanted a cigarette the moment they woke up--they expected to have it, regardless of ward rules. If they wanted 15X the amount of medicine they were prescribed they wanted it--NOW! And, so on. They would intimidate, threaten, and even one that I witnessed became violent and broke a tech's thumb over a cigarette. Homeless shelters do not have to put up with this sort of behavior and they simply kick them out, which, is fine with them, now they can smoke/drink/use to their hearts content. We've tent cities in Dayton (well hidden, in woods by the Miami river) and social worker outreach people go into them to try to assess the human need and see if anybody wants to get help--like mental health help, help with getting on their feet, subs. abuse help---routinely, these workers are run out of the tent city. The homeless KNOW who they are, so they are not threatened by these (ususally) female workers, they just don't want to have anything to do with mainstream society.
...As for playing the system-no one, NO ONE is better at it than substance abusers and the mentally ill. Mentally ill does not equal stupid.

That sounds pretty crazy to me.

08-01-2006, 08:11 AM	#1
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	I know you are addressing wolf here, and I appreciate that--however, I've worked with homeless as well. I worked with them from the standpoint of admission to hospital interviews and then while they were on the ward (mental health/substance abuse ward). 99% of the homeless I saw preferred to remain homeless because: they valued the freedom to live their life they way they wanted to. Rules and regs at homeless shelters or halfway houses (and even the rules of the hosp. ward) were too much for them. They wanted to do what they wanted, when they wanted. They didn't like the fact that meals and snacktimes and cigarette breaks were scheduled--if they wanted a snack at 2:30 in the morning (not a 'snack time' via hosp. rules) they WANTED IT! NOW! If they wanted a cigarette the moment they woke up--they expected to have it, regardless of ward rules. If they wanted 15X the amount of medicine they were prescribed they wanted it--NOW! And, so on. They would intimidate, threaten, and even one that I witnessed became violent and broke a tech's thumb over a cigarette. Homeless shelters do not have to put up with this sort of behavior and they simply kick them out, which, is fine with them, now they can smoke/drink/use to their hearts content. We've tent cities in Dayton (well hidden, in woods by the Miami river) and social worker outreach people go into them to try to assess the human need and see if anybody wants to get help--like mental health help, help with getting on their feet, subs. abuse help---routinely, these workers are run out of the tent city. The homeless KNOW who they are, so they are not threatened by these (ususally) female workers, they just don't want to have anything to do with mainstream society. I have seen motivated homeless on Oprah. And, for the most part, homeless teens are motivated to improve their situations. As for playing the system-no one, NO ONE is better at it than substance abusers and the mentally ill. Mentally ill does not equal stupid. __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

08-01-2006, 09:40 AM	#2
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	There always was and will be, homeless, vagrants, bums, drifters, con-men, destitutes, poor, nuts, rugged individualists and wackos. It's really hard to sort out individuals and their unique circumstances when you're in the unenviable position of making policy/rules to cover the non-mainstream crowd. We (notice: we, meaning the general consensus from which you may opt out), want a safety net to catch the people who are in need. But we don't want the net to become a comfy hammock. We don't want to be played for a sucker by people using the safety net as an entitlement, just another resource to supplement their income, or a reason not to try help themselves. We perceived so much abuse of the welfare system, at least anecdotally, we're skeptical of everyone claiming to need help. Logically, the best place to make individual assessments is on the local level, one on one, if you will. So they tried that, and found giving that money and power to some people, created petty power brokers that abused the system and the people it was supposed to help. Then the pendulum swung back to making hard and fast rules at the state or federal level. That doesn't work either....every case is different and any time there are strict rules, there's a back-alley lawyer figuring out how to play the rules for their benefit.... beat the system. Of course, these cheats are the ones that make the papers, rather than the ones that are truly helped. Brianna and Wolf described a group/behavior pattern that will always be a problem. There's another problem group, that they'll never see (professionally), because it avoids any contact with any institutions if it can. In a democracy, you can't help people unless they want to be helped. The trick is to provide help to those that want and need it, without being conned..... or enabling failure. No. I don't have a solution.... just trying to clarify the problem. Food in the park or food at the shelter? There will always be some individualists that will go hungry and some that will never go hungry, either way. It appears Vegas is being petty with a specific rule to thwart one samaritan, but this woman is throwing a monkey wrench in their program. Whether their program is sound or has a hidden agenda is beside the point. It's their plan to handle their problem and she doesn't have the right to screw it up. If she wants to change it, there are avenues for change, but if she wants to buck the system she has to be willing to pay a price, as all protesters have done. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. Last edited by xoxoxoBruce; 08-01-2006 at 09:44 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)