Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My friend, have you ever really visited or lived in a homeless camp as they exist now? These are not ideal communes with energetic people looking to improve the area, planting vegetables, and being industrious. Unfortunately, in addition to anyone who is truly needing a temporary housing while looking for a way to earn a living, there is a lot of people who don't want to, or can't work due to addiction or mental/social problems. The areas are usually quite filthy, rubbish everywhere, with a high incidence of theft and violence.
I'm painfully aware that what you're saying is true. You mentioned "tossing hope" at the problem, and I confess to having hope. But it takes more than hope, of course.
We have a bad habit of ignoring problems until they reach a crisis stage, then take the first drastic action that comes to mind. These camps are a prime example. They're ignored until they become as you describe. What they need is some leadership with enforcement, to keep them clean, keep the drug and alcohol abusers at bay, keep out the violence. I mean a "mayor" instead of the police being called only when there's an emergency.
I remember Banana Patch on Maui in the early seventies. It was on private land, and open to anyone to live and build. Being on private land, the owner could say 'no' when he had to. The "houses" was shacks at best, but some of them were actually nice, although they were built with salvage materials, they were built with care and creativity. The place wasn't dirty with litter at all, and it was peaceful. There were gardens all over. It was closed for reasons unrelated to the conduct of the residents. The county looked the other way at the multitude of building code violations, but kept an eye on the health and hygiene situation.
The place basically worked. There was also a large encampment behind the beach at Makena. The owner of the property behind the beach probably never saw the encampment. He was an elderly man who lived on Oahu. When certain powers wanted to shut the camp down, he was told there was a hundred or so people living on his land. He was very happy to hear the news. Makena had no leadership or enforcement, but it was still not nearly as ugly and problem ridden as the homeless camps of today.
I think maybe the ideology and spirit of the times had something to do with it. The residents of those places were emphatically not "homeless people" with all the stigma the term carries. People didn't want to stay at those places because they were destitute and desperate, they stayed there because they wanted to. I had regular housing, but used to camp there for days on end quite often, because they were actually nice places to be.
I don't know why people changed. Today, there seems to be a mixture of entitlement and alienation and desperation and despair. Back then there was ideology and hope. Hope, or at least the lack of fear of the bulldozers.
Having a sense of security, that you can stay and improve your situation, rather than fear being kicked out, and being in a dog-eat-dog environment, can do wonders for turning a camp into a community.
I read a book written on the subject of the Favelas (so-called "shantytowns") in Rio de Janiero. It was called "The Myth of Marginality", and it provides an example of how these communities can be quite a bit better than what outsiders would think. The key is to develop a sense of community and belonging in the residents, rather than to view them as "untouchables", and ignore them until you can't any more, and at that point, erase them. You have accept that being without income for proper housing does not make someone an animal. If people are constantly treated as a pathology, they will soon enough believe it themselves.
Hey, call me hopeful too. Berkeley girl, born & raised, grew up with People's Park forming in the lots that used to be where my family rented an apartment. We had to move because UC Berkeley annexed the properties, then People's Park developed, the riots, and as far as I know the land continues to be a park.
Even there, in those years, what started as an open community park with gardens and play structures and free concerts - soon devolved into a drug sellers paradise, homeless and drunks and druggies camping out. No more children would go there to play, the gardens ignored or ravaged.
It isn't just a sign of these times, it's a sign of our culture. My personal belief is that group can change to mob too easily. Yes, there are communes that have successfully had group-interest living, but most of those had some central belief structure and authority. Maybe not "the man" (for those of you who remember that term), maybe not religious, but someone or a group of someones who took responsibility and had the charisma or authority to lead the group into self-maintenance.
I think that a lot of people on Maui are struggling now, maybe more than ever. But sometimes those who are just temporarily on hard times are also those who have other community resources and don't end up camping. That is, lost a job but can move in with family and friends. Those who don't have friends or family won't take them in are those who also maybe have social behavior problems. Even the family says, "that's enough" and boots them out of the family door. Friends know better, or find out in time, that the social mistfit can't get along, and now that person is camping out and demonstrating the same irresponsible behavior in the public eye.
You have a lot of wisdom, and I admire your considerate thoughts. I'm just not sure the majority who are in the homeless camps really share your viewpoint. I do think we need to figure out what to do, and I admit I don't have the wisdom, or knowledge, or even the energy to have a go at solving it.
Would any of you, if you were in the position, provide a job to a homeless person, provided they had the skills you needed??
Think about it; they don't have clean clothes, enough money to barely live (eat, wash, etc.) and mostly don't have a phone for you to contact them at for that job.
Some other folks say "Only by the grace of God go I". If we are made in the likeness of a God then where is our compassion, kindness, caring??
What goes around does come around ... someday.
Maybe not until at the end...
I would give my shirt off my back for anyone who needed it more than me, and I have, and others have done it for me. Not for the glory or any other reason than we each were human and in need.
Would any of you, if you were in the position, provide a job to a homeless person, provided they had the skills you needed??
Think about it; they don't have clean clothes, enough money to barely live (eat, wash, etc.) and mostly don't have a phone for you to contact them at for that job.
Some other folks say "Only by the grace of God go I". If we are made in the likeness of a God then where is our compassion, kindness, caring??
What goes around does come around ... someday.
Maybe not until at the end...
I would give my shirt off my back for anyone who needed it more than me, and I have, and others have done it for me. Not for the glory or any other reason than we each were human and in need.
You're welcome...
A "needs-based" system works only at the family level. Once you get beyond that (the whole rest of society), it fails.
At those levels, the only system that works are "merit based". Giving an adult something just because she needs it only insures that her needs will increase in proportion or faster, than your willingness to meet them.
People MUST be made responsible for their own upkeep. I think it was Aristotle who said that tolerance was the last virtue of a failing society. There is no virtue in tolerating the intolerable or accepting the unacceptable. It is false-charity that does far more harm than good.
"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That, right there, is the purpose of a government. To secure, i.e. guarantee our rights.
Yes, and your rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say that your right is to have a home paid for by taxpayers, free food and medical care, again, at the expense of everyone else.
You have the right to life. You have the right to liberty. You have the right to THE PURSUIT of happiness. The government will see to it that you have those rights. It is NOT the job of the government to give you shelter and food. That is your job.
As for places like Denmark, have you been there? Go live there for a year or two. Come back and tell us all how wonderful it was to pay such high taxes on everything.
I'd rather keep more of the money I earned to pay my way. What I have left over can go to charities I CHOOSE, NOT the government. America is a very charitable country, we love to give and give. What we don't like is when we are forced to give. We earn the money, we choose where it goes.
Yes, and your rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say that your right is to have a home paid for by taxpayers, free food and medical care, again, at the expense of everyone else.
You have the right to life. You have the right to liberty. You have the right to THE PURSUIT of happiness. The government will see to it that you have those rights. It is NOT the job of the government to give you shelter and food. That is your job.
As for places like Denmark, have you been there? Go live there for a year or two. Come back and tell us all how wonderful it was to pay such high taxes on everything.
I'd rather keep more of the money I earned to pay my way. What I have left over can go to charities I CHOOSE, NOT the government. America is a very charitable country, we love to give and give. What we don't like is when we are forced to give. We earn the money, we choose where it goes.
But socialists will never understand that.
"... that among these are life, liberty, ... ". Get it? Those are just given as examples. As civilization advances, we recognize more rights.
The thing "rugged individualists" don't understand about "socialism" is that there money comes from other people. It is only possible to become prosperous when you have a system that makes it possible in the first place. You don't "make" your money all by yourself. You exchange the products of your labor with people who are able to pay you.
Bill Gates recognizes where his money came from. Too many people fail to see that their money came from ... "other people"... a concept that seems to be harder and harder for people to grasp.
No man is an island. When everybody around you is living in wretchedness, you are too. We depend on one another to create opportunities for us. If nobody has a dime for an apple, nobody's going to make much money selling apples.
I can't see why socialism is perceived as such an evil thing. Are people really that blind to the fundamental fact that our well being is a matter of the well being of others? Some people just can't seem to understand that it isn't "all about meeee".
I'm not going to bother addressing the usual slippery slope and straw dog arguments.
Giving an adult something just because she needs it only insures that her needs will increase in proportion or faster, than your willingness to meet them.
This is not always true and we are a good example. A long time ago my wife and I found ourselves on extremely hard times and couldn't find work. We were given food stamps for about 3 months. We used what we were given to survive while we were looking for jobs to better ourselves. 19 years later, we are doing great, about to pay off our 2nd house, and are working hard to complete our goal of moving to Hawaii to be close to family and the place we love.
This is not always true and we are a good example. A long time ago my wife and I found ourselves on extremely hard times and couldn't find work. We were given food stamps for about 3 months. We used what we were given to survive while we were looking for jobs to better ourselves. 19 years later, we are doing great, about to pay off our 2nd house, and are working hard to complete our goal of moving to Hawaii to be close to family and the place we love.
Then, I think the government should implement the "accommodation stamp" program in addition to food stamps.
[quote=jeffington;19469715Giving an adult something just because she needs it only insures that her needs will increase in proportion or faster, than your willingness to meet them.
[/quote]
Bull-s***.
There are some people who milk the system. Others do not. Such sweeping generalizations are trash.
There are some people who milk the system. Others do not. Such sweeping generalizations are trash.
Oh my. Perhaps you should get yourself under control before you post again. To help you still your pounding heart, I'll put the following text in front of my post.
"In the overwhelming majority, but not the totality, of cases".
I hope you feel better now.
And further, I am not talking about an occasional helping hand to carry otherwise-productive people over rough spots, but the chronic bum who has given up on life's responsibilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
