Cities' homeless crackdown: Could it be compassion fatigue?

[M II A II R II K]

Cities' homeless crackdown: Could it be compassion fatigue?


June 11th, 2012

By Yamiche Alcindor



Read More: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ess/55479912/1

A growing number of cities across the United States are making it harder to be homeless. Philadelphia recently banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks. Denver has begun enforcing a ban on eating and sleeping on property without permission. And this month, lawmakers in Ashland, Ore., will consider strengthening the town's ban on camping and making noise in public. And the list goes on: Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

- City leaders say they want to improve the lives of homeless people and ensure public safety, while supporters of the homeless argue that such regulations criminalize homelessness and make it harder to live on the nation's streets. "We're seeing these types of laws being proposed and passed all over the country," said Heather Johnson, a civil rights attorney at the homeless and poverty law center, which opposes many of the measures. "We think that criminalization measures such as these are counterproductive. Rather than address the root cause of homelessness, they perpetuate homelessness."

- Critics argue that bans on feeding and camping often leave people with no where to eat or sleep because many cities lack emergency food services and shelters. Meanwhile, citing people who violate such ordinances costs cities money when officials try to follow up on such cases and hurts people's ability to get jobs and housing, because many develop criminal records. In 2007, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty filed a lawsuit against Dallas contesting its ordinance that restricted locations where groups could share food and prohibited many groups from providing food in locations where they had served homeless people for years. A trial is scheduled to begin this month.

- Brooks' group supports the ordinances and said they are holistic approaches to solving a problem that will not simply end by giving people shelter. The key to helping homeless people is to get them indoors where social service workers can help them, Brooks said. An opponent of the measures, Neil Donovan, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, sees the ordinances as possible signs of "compassion fatigue." "People are getting frustrated and getting angry at the issue," he said. "The person who is asking for money outside a coffee shop, the person who is camping just outside the ballpark, the chronically homeless are getting the brunt of this anger."

.....

[East7thStreet]

It seems no matter how much money you throw at the problem it doesn't get any better. If anything when you congregate a lot of these people you are just making it worse. And if you have had any experience with the homeless you realize they are often times not the most likeable people.

[10023]

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

It seems no matter how much money you throw at the problem it doesn't get any better. If anything when you congregate a lot of these people you are just making it worse. And if you have had any experience with the homeless you realize they are often times not the most likeable people.

All true. There is unfortunately no way to really "deal with" homelessness because our laws (thankfully) don't allow someone to be detained against their will without committing a crime. So you can offer a (probably mentally ill) homeless person access to a shelter, but you can't force them to stay there. And yes, they're usually smelly, often aggressive, and mostly alcoholics or drug addicts. It's perfectly reasonable for residents of a neighborhood to not want them around.

[brickell]

In Miami we just eat their face...


too soon?

[mhays]

It should be easier to commit crazy people. Call me a non-compassionate liberal.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by brickell

In Miami we just eat their face...


too soon?

Not soon enough ...

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by brickell

In Miami we just eat their face...


too soon?

I literally laughed out loud. Thank you.

[dave8721]

I would think that in many cities a lot of it could stem from the fact that many affluent people are moving back into city centers and thus encountering homeless people more often. City centers were a great place for concentrating homeless people when they got in the way of relatively few well off people..

[213]

In downtown L.A. the homeless problem is regarded a key obstacle to development goals, and the business community is actively exploring a range of initiatives. One involves business-sponsored employment training and job placement. Another aims for stiffer law enforcement and breaking up the dense concentration of services that anchor nearby "Skid Row."

The latter is proving controversial -- Occupy activists have been camping outside the Central City Association for the past few weeks -- but I expect it will find some traction. City Hall shares CCA's aspirations for downtown, where the homeless are a chronic, ubiquitous presence that won't soon abate otherwise.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by 213

In downtown L.A. the homeless problem is regarded a key obstacle to development goals, and the business community is actively exploring a range of initiatives. One involves business-sponsored employment training and job placement. Another aims for stiffer law enforcement and breaking up the dense concentration of services that anchor nearby "Skid Row."

The latter is proving controversial -- Occupy activists have been camping outside the Central City Association for the past few weeks -- but I expect it will find some traction. City Hall shares CCA's aspirations for downtown, where the homeless are a chronic, ubiquitous presence that won't soon abate otherwise.

as a resident of Downtown LA, i can tell you that im tired of it. The ACLU and that retarded judge are doing more to hurt and enable these sick people than actually helping them (judge ruled that the LAPD cannot remove possessions from the street, even if its left unattended. These mentally sick people have a propensity to hoard everything, even bags of trash, which leads to disease. Also, the fortresses that they are building with the trash hides drug and other illegal and or disgusting activity) The majority of these homeless are drug addicts and / or mentally ill.

In my opinion, the city should buy cheap land in the desert, build housing, care centers and mental hospitals and house / rehab these people over there. Now, some people might say that i lack compassion or am restricting these peoples first amendment rights, but honestly, what we have now is not working. These addicts have easy access to drugs and alcohol, are enabled by begging and the few dollars of change they scour up a day, and are content. They are also a health risk to everyone else.

[hauntedheadnc]

A lot of the problem of homelessness can be blamed on the move toward deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in favor of "community care." The problem, of course, is that this really means that most states just reformed their mental healthcare systems out of existence, dumping the mentally ill into communities that did not have the means or the know-how to care for them.

That was certainly the case here where in my small city of 84,000 people, there are usually between 500 and 1000 homeless people wandering the city on any given day. Although, here, thanks to an aggressive campaign to house the chronically homeless, we recently reported our lowest number of homeless people in a decade -- an average of fewer than 400 per day when the final tally was in for the year.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

A lot of the problem of homelessness can be blamed on the move toward deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in favor of "community care." The problem, of course, is that this really means that most states just reformed their mental healthcare systems out of existence, dumping the mentally ill into communities that did not have the means or the know-how to care for them.

Yup.

Thank you, Ronald Reagan.

[kevike]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Yup.

Thank you, Ronald Reagan.

No Thanks for JFK? After all it was JFK who pushed for and signed the Community Mental Health Act where -

"In many cases, patients wound up in adult homes or with their families, or homeless in large cities, but without the mental health care they needed."

[Steely Dan]

it's one of the thorniest ethical problems of our day: what to do with people who, often through no fault of their own, are incapable of productively participating in society? warehousing them in institutions seemed cruel, but releasing them to the wilderness of our city streets hasn't been kind to many of them either.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

as a resident of Downtown LA, i can tell you that im tired of it. The ACLU and that retarded judge are doing more to hurt and enable these sick people than actually helping them (judge ruled that the LAPD cannot remove possessions from the street, even if its left unattended. These mentally sick people have a propensity to hoard everything, even bags of trash, which leads to disease. Also, the fortresses that they are building with the trash hides drug and other illegal and or disgusting activity) The majority of these homeless are drug addicts and / or mentally ill.

In my opinion, the city should buy cheap land in the desert, build housing, care centers and mental hospitals and house / rehab these people over there. Now, some people might say that i lack compassion or am restricting these peoples first amendment rights, but honestly, what we have now is not working. These addicts have easy access to drugs and alcohol, are enabled by begging and the few dollars of change they scour up a day, and are content. They are also a health risk to everyone else.

I heard about this on NPR (prior to the ruling). I agree with you, the ruling just perpetuates the problem. Homeless folks need access to help and a place to put their stuff. By providing such facilities, it clears the sidewalk of rubbish, but also gets them the services they need to regain control of their lives.

This hasn't been a problem in Chicago, but for some of the very ill folks, it's getting there. We have one individual in our neighborhood that has maybe two dozen plastic bags full of clothing. He'll pile them up on one of the most ritzy commercial street corners in the city, and sometimes the bags force people to walk in the street.

Legally, you could argue temporary structures and objects placed on the sidewalk are a health and safety risk....either carrying disease or forcing the public to walk in traffic. However, California never ceases to amaze me when courts make a decision that every other state in the US wouldn't, and that reasonable argument did not fly.

I've found homeless folks in Chicago to be the least obtrusive to the public's daily lives of almost any other city. Granted, everyone can tell a story otherwise, but most just keep to themselves. Some have found ways to be productive like holding doors, and assisting with trash disposal to earn tips. But the rest just usually sit quietly with a cup in front of them and don't say too much.

Ironically, LosAngelesSportsFan mentioned the ACLU that's sometimes out on the sidewalks trying to get signatures. I'm far more concerned about them hassling me than a homeless man. At least I can give them some change and they're gone. The ACLU people will talk your ear off and then want signatures. Sorry I don't have time. I was once walking with a coworker and we were late getting back to the office from lunch. One of them politely said "Hey how's your day going?" My coworker replied "Oh sorry, we aren't interested." The girl screamed at us "I JUST ASKED YOU HOW YOUR DAY WAS GOING!!!"

Yeah....that's a lie lol.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I heard about this on NPR (prior to the ruling). I agree with you, the ruling just perpetuates the problem. Homeless folks need access to help and a place to put their stuff. By providing such facilities, it clears the sidewalk of rubbish, but also gets them the services they need to regain control of their lives.

This hasn't been a problem in Chicago, but for some of the very ill folks, it's getting there. We have one individual in our neighborhood that has maybe two dozen plastic bags full of clothing. He'll pile them up on one of the most ritzy commercial street corners in the city, and sometimes the bags force people to walk in the street.

Legally, you could argue temporary structures and objects placed on the sidewalk are a health and safety risk....either carrying disease or forcing the public to walk in traffic. However, California never ceases to amaze me when courts make a decision that every other state in the US wouldn't, and that reasonable argument did not fly.

I've found homeless folks in Chicago to be the least obtrusive to the public's daily lives of almost any other city. Granted, everyone can tell a story otherwise, but most just keep to themselves. Some have found ways to be productive like holding doors, and assisting with trash disposal to earn tips. But the rest just usually sit quietly with a cup in front of them and don't say too much.

Ironically, LosAngelesSportsFan mentioned the ACLU that's sometimes out on the sidewalks trying to get signatures. I'm far more concerned about them hassling me than a homeless man. At least I can give them some change and they're gone. The ACLU people will talk your ear off and then want signatures. Sorry I don't have time. I was once walking with a coworker and we were late getting back to the office from lunch. One of them politely said "Hey how's your day going?" My coworker replied "Oh sorry, we aren't interested." The girl screamed at us "I JUST ASKED YOU HOW YOUR DAY WAS GOING!!!"

Yeah....that's a lie lol.

were lucky to have the best of both worlds in Downtown LA......

[Standpoor]

Originally Posted by kevike

No Thanks for JFK? After all it was JFK who pushed for and signed the Community Mental Health Act where -

"In many cases, patients wound up in adult homes or with their families, or homeless in large cities, but without the mental health care they needed."

Come on, the problem is not with the community mental health model but the lack of funding and desire to make it better. The articles linked to in that wikipedia page spell out exactly the problems with the CMHA. States quickly closed down insitutions without the necessary CMHCs and massive cuts to the program in the 80s destroyed the CMH model. Institutionalization would not work either if the government did not properly fund the program. If equal government cuts had been made to instiutions, there would not be enough beds in decrepit institutions and the problem would still exist. As Lillian Rubin says in Sand Castles and Snake Pits: Homelessness, Public Policy, and the Law of Unintended Consequences which is from Dissent Magazine and linked to in that wikipedia article:

It’s always easier for the federal government to spell out good ideas than it is to put up the hard cash necessary to make them work. So perhaps the simplest explanation is that the road to hell is paved with unfunded and underfunded government programs.

Which in essence is the problem we are faced with now. As the recession drags on forcing more and more people into government assistance programs and forcing those that have disabilities and substance abuse problems onto the streets, government and private foundation budgets are stretched extremely thin. There is no simple way to help the homeless. Segregation still requires huge quantities of money to develop systems to house, treat, and incarcerate the growing number of homeless people across the country. It is a catch 22 that does not have an answer.

Its also interesting that because of Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, that people who can afford to buy health insurance, those that have a job, are now much more likely to get effective mental health treatments. While those that do not have health insurance and are unable to get it, because they are homeless and mentally ill, are less likely to get effective mental health treatments because of the dearth of community mental health options.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=940