Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

This, and that it is a reminder that they are unwilling to do enought to stop the homeless problem.

As if failure to "do enough" were the issue rather than "doing the right thing".

It is incredibly difficult to structure institutional solutions that actually "help" without doing huge amounts of collateral damage through laregly unintended consequences. I'm awestruck by the simple wisdom of the UK "only one night" rule that Wolf mentioned earlier.

Government-managed "help" entirely too often simply creates new ecological niches in which people take up permanent residence. You can call it "help", but it's too seldom actually helpful.

[Spexxvet]

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.

[Trilby]

Have you ever been with the crazy for hours on end? I have. State institutions, private hospitals...name it. If you doubt me, I whole heartedly encourage you to posse up to the very next organization to help the homeless that you can! Act now! Go into the woods! Go into the abandoned homes without running water, without food, with 75 dogs and cats and 12 children! Go on, young man! You haven't lived until you've experienced these smells, these sights! you try to help, you offer assistance and do you know what they say? "How much oxycontin can I get? 'Cause I need a lot of oxycontin..."

Crazy does NOT = Stupid.

If you don't know this, you don't know crazy.

Um... exactly how many mentally ill people have you worked with , BTW?

[Spexxvet]

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Have you ever been with the crazy for hours on end? I have. State institutions, private hospitals...name it. If you doubt me, I whole heartedly encourage you to posse up to the very next organization to help the homeless that you can! Act now! Go into the woods! Go into the abandoned homes without running water, without food, with 75 dogs and cats and 12 children! Go on, young man! You haven't lived until you've experienced these smells, these sights! you try to help, you offer assistance and do you know what they say? "How much oxycontin can I get? 'Cause I need a lot of oxycontin..."

Crazy does NOT = Stupid.

If you don't know this, you don't know crazy.

Um... exactly how many mentally ill people have you worked with , BTW?

Brianna, don't get excited, I was agreeing with you! The behavior you described sounds like the people are mentally ill. I know crazy people are not necessarily stupid - and the ones who play the system are certainly not stupid.

[Trilby]

I am sorry for jumping. I am very upset. I've even posted a comment on the UK's Guardian (don't worry, it wouldn't embarrass you all) --I am very, very upset about everything. This is why I am not effective in the crazy/high community and wolf is. I take it much too much to heart. I also take dead babies to heart (we all do) but hate the way foreign media portray us---as if we could portray all mexican's as bean eating, siesta taking, tequila drinking assholes....that is the way American's are being described in foreign media----SUV driving, McDonald's eating, Religious Right, etc....

it is making me totally nuts.

I apologize and I need to stop reading this shit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Brianna

snip~ I take it much too much to heart. ~snip~ it is making me totally nuts. ~snip

Chill, darlin'. There's nothing wrong with having an emotional response. Normal adults, unlike TW, do.
The problem, as usual, is the desire for approval....lack of disapproval won't do, either....it must be affirmation. You know where I'm going.

I'm really not Spock, honest.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

Sure it is. But since you're concerned about this ... how many homeless people did you have half-hour conversations with last week?

If I'd tried to say "Oh, well I've never met any homeless people who did X", that might be relevant.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by HappyMonkey

If I'd tried to say "Oh, well I've never met any homeless people who did X", that might be relevant.

Is that really so much different than implying that "I'm sure there must be homeless people who don't do X"? Accusing a sample of being biased implies that you believe there are cases out there that don't fit the sample.

[Spexxvet]

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]

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]

Or why don't you comment on the subject matter, rather than introducing a red herring, trying to sidetrack the discussion with comments about passive voice and details.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Or why don't you comment on the subject matter, rather than introducing a red herring, trying to sidetrack the discussion with comments about passive voice and details.

Sorry that you don't agree with me on what the "subject matter" is.

You've apparently postulated a government bureaucracy that going to make these life-and-death decisions for a pretty sizable population. Would you model it on the current social services infrastructure, well-known for its efficiency and cost-effectivness?

Even if so, the criteria they will use to sort the sheep from the goats is germane.

If those are dismissable as "details", then the discussion you invited is pointless.


At least The Velvet Monkey Wrench is entertaining. Ever read that? Or Coventry?

I wonder if this decision was made by a "smaller government" Republican local administration? If I know this area I'd bet on it.
I love how Republicans still like to say they are for "smaller, less intrusive, government" then break every right in the Bill of Rights, perform illegal phone taps, extend the Anti-Patriot Acts make laws about feeding hungry people, illegally/secretly track financial transactions, etc, etc, etc...
Yeah, smaller, less-intrusive, government, sure, tell me another one...