Crack Dealers, Pimps, Prostitutes.

[downtownpdx]

I find it a little annoying being asked for change on a daily basis downtown -- but it's really no big deal, I just smile and politely say no. I feel like anyone begging for spare change isn't gonna see a big turnaround in their life from a few handouts each day, but I know people actually somewhow make a living out of it. Many have certain panhandling spots, (freeway exits, downtown corners, etc.) that they're even territorial over with other panhandlers. I don't have a clue what percentage actually have no other means of existence, but I personally don't give change b/c I don't like to encourage the lifestyle.

I don't know how much of a difference it's made, but I'm glad the city enacted the sit-lie ordinance this last year downtown. It seems there are fewer sidewalk 'campers', but they're still around. I realize many have nowhere to go, but I also think businesses should be able to operate without panhandlers outside their doors, bothering would-be customers. Panhanding is repeatedly cited as the #1 concern of downtown business/property owners, and people will opt for the malls b/c of it. This is what keeps retailers and businesses away from downtown, and personally I think their right to operate in a pleasant, even tolerable environment trumps the right to sit on a sidewalk and ask for money.

[edgepdx]

It seems to me that by definition someone who is out on the street panhandling or smoking crack is that they are mentally ill. Not being able or willing to hold a job, cloth or house oneself shows something is serious wrong in their mental state, so saying "hey why don't they just get it together" is sort of like saying to the guy talking to himself "hey why don't you just quit talking to yourself". Do you really think that will work? As a society I think it's our duty to try and help any and all of these people, maybe with some help some might be able to reintegrate into society, but others may be to far gone or even lack the mental faculties and it is our duty to try and provide a modicum of a decent existence to them. Unfortunately as a country we seem to offer little to any help beyond "hey you, get a job" as we complain about how uncomfortable (or is it guilty) they make us feel.

[bvpcvm]

pdxman - it's a very tough question. punishing people for their mental illnesses is not something a civil society does. banishing them is even more ridiculous; unfortunately, i've seen several posts here where people suggested they just be pushed out of downtown or oldtown. also, i'm sure you understood this, but i'm only talking about homelessness. drug-dealing and prostitution - i have no idea how to deal with them, except maybe legalize and regulate them, but of course that's not something we could really do on a city level. so back to the homeless. well, you probably heard that cascadia is pretty much in the toilet. i'd say we need much more funding for mental health programs and possibly a little less autonomy for people suffering from mental illnesses. i can't remember the name of the author, but there was an interview on npr maybe a year ago with this guy who wrote about his son's decent into schizophrenia and basically, because the kid was 18, all he (the kid) had to say, whatever his mental state, was that he didn't want any help and that was it. since the kid was an adult the father was helpless. if you've ever met anyone with a mental illness you've probably noticed that they often don't even realize it themselves; instead they explain most everything as someone else's fault. the bus driver purposely didn't stop or whatever. so getting people to actually get treatment is pretty difficult. and if they don't have the skills to live independently they end up on the streets.

rsbear - basically, if we're talking about assistance in general, it's a question of funding and politics. there is a system in place by which if you meet certain income standards etc you qualify for assistance. but the system is designed by middle class people with politics in mind. it's designed to disqualify people from assistance; to avoid giving any kind of assistance. i don't know how we can change that. but banishment or punishment is not the answer. and to me, calls for "cleaning up" downtown sound like "sweep 'em all under the rug!"

(btw, pdxman, i used the word "prejudices" in the most technical of ways possible; i.e., preconceived notions - i did not mean to imply any racism or anything on your part, just so we're clear).

[rsbear]

Thank you for the thoughtful and well articulated post. Drug addiction, homelessness, mental illness, etc are such complex problems. Combined with our notion of civil liberties (panhandling is "free speech"), a general lack of willingness to fund social programs, and (speaking in generalities) society's lack of compassion and understanding of these types of personal problems I'm not sure how this country will ever address this issues.

That said, I really resent being asked for money multiple times during a short walk, whether it be in Portland, downtown Los Angeles, West Hollywood or Pasadena. What about my rights not to be harassed in public?

In Old Town Pasadena (upscale shopping and dining district) it seems there is someone begging on every block. I used to work there and have to admit that having the same people (sitting legs-out on the narrow sidewalks so you had to walk around them) ask me for money every day got to be annoying. Most seemed pretty capable to me (but I'm not a doctor) and they had chosen begging as their profession. Others had obvious physical disabilities or (seemingly) obvious mental illnesses, and to those folks I gave some coin.

[bvpcvm]

yeah, somehow the begging doesn't really bother me (obviously). they're usually pretty polite and not terribly pushy. what DOES bother me are people asking for signatures, selling things ("Street Roots" - even though it's a good idea), etc. you can't walk in or out of Powell's or Trader Joes without people trying to guilt you into submission. at least in my book. kind of like that woody allen short (no idea what the name was) in which his mother appeared in the sky over NYC and nagged him all day.

[cab]

We could try what Guiliani did in NY. No one is actually sure what happen to all the homeless people after Guiliani got done with them. My bet was the hot dog carts price slash of 92, how can you sell a $1 hot dog in NY without some kind of subsidized protein source.

On a serious note, why not dilute the problem. The surrounding suburbs do not carry their weight when it comes to housing the low end part of society. Why can't Lake O build affordable housing. The days of herding low income people up into inner cities is ending. With the popularity of city living the pressure will increase the push of low income people out to the edge.

[alexjon]

Portland is known for its street kids, and I think they deserve to stick around.

However, they need to understand that they need to be on their best behavior (and most of them are). It's a good general deterrent and as you see with most of what DOES happen out of the ordinary, it's always extraordinary. The regular dealings of a city rarely happen in Portland beyond minor drug deals.

There is no ho stroll in Portland!

[alexjon]

Also, to add: The worst people in all of dt Portland are the hippies crowding the square. Ohhhh, how they grate on my nerves

[CUclimber]

While we're at it can we get rid of those GreenPeace kids that are sprouting up on every intersection?

"HI HOW'S IT GOING?! WANT TO HELP SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT?"

Ugh...

I actually don't mind the street kids all that much. In general, and compared to other cities, they're polite, sober during the day (more or less), and won't pester you if you decline to give them anything.

[alexjon]

I really do think they help keep violent crime to a minimum.

[zilfondel]

Oooh, I know. They should just ban children under 18. They really get annoying, and do not contribute to society.

[hymalaia]

Originally Posted by CUclimber

While we're at it can we get rid of those GreenPeace kids that are sprouting up on every intersection?

"HI HOW'S IT GOING?! WANT TO HELP SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT?"

oh i don't know, I think those kids can be a lot of fun with the right attitude. .. "you know, I think global warming is a great big scam!"

or

"actually I don't. I have these allergies, they ruin my life. I blame the environment. I hope it dies. F*ck mother earth. F*ck life. What good has it ever done anybody? It's brought us nothing but suffering and misery. I say we kill it all. Are you with me?"

[WestCoast]

I'm not going to get into this on an Internet forum, because it's a complete waste of all our time.


*I'm with Pacific NW, we're here because of architecture and development, not social problems. Nothing good will come of this debate, so I'm deleting my comments made today and leaving it at that.*

[bvpcvm]

^ the the question is this: how do you define free-loaders? or what are your criteria at which someone goes from being a "worthy" recipient of assistance and crosses over into being "unworthy"? i would imagine that you would agree that someone who can't afford health insurance and is diagnosed with breast cancer is not freeloading by asking for assistance. or at least i would be surprised if you would consider that freeloading. so where's the border? at which point is someone's need no longer legitimate? how, in a society where everyone has rights to privacy and freedom, do you somehow define in a consistent, bias-free way, a point at which a legitimate need becomes illegitimate?

[PacificNW]

I have decided to delete my input to this discussion....

[Okstate]

How do you guys feel about the "kids" that seem ok in the head but still loiter the streets with a very "strong presence". I understand we can look, say, and practically get away with any form of demonstration we wish. However, we have got to acknowledge that some folks scare other folks away. I personally believe that a "few" are keeping away "many". What should we do with those "few"? I guess nothing. As for the mentally challenged, our government has got to step up and take better care of their citizens.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Okstate

How do you guys feel about the "kids" that seem ok in the head but still loiter the streets with a very "strong presence". I understand we can look, say, and practically get away with any form of demonstration we wish. However, we have got to acknowledge that some folks scare other folks away. I personally believe that a "few" are keeping away "many". What should we do with those "few"? I guess nothing. As for the mentally challenged, our government has got to step up and take better care of their citizens.

Street kids are a much-maligned but harmless part of Portland. People complain about them, but bad things generally happen only after the street kids have left the area for the day/night.

[philopdx]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

^ the the question is this: how do you define free-loaders? or what are your criteria at which someone goes from being a "worthy" recipient of assistance and crosses over into being "unworthy"? i would imagine that you would agree that someone who can't afford health insurance and is diagnosed with breast cancer is not freeloading by asking for assistance. or at least i would be surprised if you would consider that freeloading. so where's the border? at which point is someone's need no longer legitimate? how, in a society where everyone has rights to privacy and freedom, do you somehow define in a consistent, bias-free way, a point at which a legitimate need becomes illegitimate?

No system is perfect, but you do the best you can. In a system where "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" is the mantra of choice, ability becomes a liability and need becomes a coveted asset. When economic and social policies fail to reflect reality in ANY way, aggregate economic output will probably stagnante.

Example:
REALITY: More children = less disposable income
UNREALITY: More children = more disposable income!

REALITY: If I don't work, I can't eat.
UNREALITY: If I don't work, I get free food!

While every modern industrialized nation fulfills its social contract by providing a safety net (in many cases one more robust than ours), a government failing to provide proper incentives and disincentives for certain behavior will induce people to act according to their own best interest, not the interest of the collective.

Such is the sad irony of institutionalized collectivism, the legacy of which are the stunning economic successes of Cuba, North Korea and The Soviet Union.

[bvpcvm]

absolutely. no one's advocating a soviet system here. westCoast said something like he was sick of "freeloaders" (he's since deleted his comment) and my reply was, sure ok, so how do you define "freeloaders"? my point was not just give away the farm to everybody, but that assuming we want a safety net, you have to have standards in place which don't take into account the applicant's off-putting personality or unusual fashion sense or whatever. the system should be entirely neutral with regard to personal quirks. it should be cold and rational. blanket condemnation of people as "freeloaders" is an emotional response and as such, is unhelpful.

[alexjon]

I can assure all of you that the load they get for free isn't much. It's like saying "we'll buy you a house and give you a job" and then handing someone a flyer from a homebuilder and expecting them to get it themselves.