quote: A national organization has named Little Rock the nation's "meanest" city toward the homeless — ranking it above Atlanta, Los Angeles and New York.
quote: Following Little Rock on this year's list of meanest cities were Atlanta, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Gainesville, Fla., New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu and Austin, Texas.
quote: recent study by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock found 200 to 300 homeless people are unsheltered at any given time and another 2,000 stay in shelters in a four-county central Arkansas area, which includes Pulaski County. Little Rock, the county seat, is developing a 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness.
I thought this article was interesting ... I'm just wondering if anyone knows how you can possibly measure how "mean" a population is to its homeless. The article seems to me like it just determined the number of homeless people in the city as the factor.
And what's the point of releasing such a study? Shouldn't cities focus on other things rather than going out of their way to be nice to the homeless?
quote: Homeless advocates said the designation was timed in part to deter the city from conducting a police sweep of homeless people before the (Clinton) library's Nov. 18 opening.
[ November 15, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: kaioshin00 ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: I'm just wondering if anyone knows how you can possibly measure how "mean" a population is to its homeless.
The article says
quote: Stoops said Little Rock topped this year's list because of policies that included plans to remove homeless from camps along the banks of the Arkansas River.
quote: Shouldn't cities focus on other things rather than going out of their way to be nice to the homeless?
Shouldn't helping these people get off the street be something the cities care about?
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Woops, I did't read the whole article
Yeah, I guess, but I dont think that should be one of the top priorities. And I dont think there should have been a national study to determine which cities are mean.
quote: Stoops said Little Rock topped this year's list because of policies that included plans to remove homeless from camps along the banks of the Arkansas River.
So camps are still considered homeless?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Last I was aware in Arkansas politics, there was a plan for a (humanitariangroupwhosenameIcantremember) homeless shelter in Little Rock. They were going for a building within the downtown area, which buisnesspeople faught against because to them it meant a lot of loitering homeless people around downtown. I'm pretty sure the group got the permit nonetheless.
Little Rock has its flaws (don't *even* get me started on the Clinton library), but I'd hardly classify it as "mean". I remember doing work for Dorcas house and the Women's Project. I'm not sure if those are considered "Little Rock" though.
[ November 15, 2004, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: And I dont think there should have been a national study to determine which cities are mean.
It was done by the National Coalition for the Homeless. It seems like that would be exactly the kind of study an organization like that would do.
quote: So camps are still considered homeless?
I would consider it homeless, yes. And I imagine it fits the government definition of homeless. Would you consider yourself homeless if you lived in a tent?
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
No, I wouldn't. I would consider myself homeless if I didn't have any type of shelter.
When they give help, I would hope the priority is to the people who dont have ANY type of shelter at all, and then the ones living in camps.
quote: It was done by the National Coalition for the Homeless. It seems like that would be exactly the kind of study an organization like that would do.
Yes, yes indeed it does. I still don't think that a study to determine which cities are the 'meanest' is the best way to go about correcting homelessness.
quote: Little Rock found 200 to 300 homeless people are unsheltered at any given time
quote:Greater Little Rock is a metropolitan area covering four counties in Central Arkansas with a 2000 estimated population of 572,055.
I think that people may be getting the wrong idea of these "mean" cities by this study. If 200/572000 (3/10th of 1 percent) people are homeless, and that is the meanest city in the country, is it really that big of a problem?
[ November 15, 2004, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: kaioshin00 ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
A car would be considered shelter, then. So living out of you car wouldn't be homeless?
Or how about a cardboard box. A makeshift shelter.
Or staying nights in a homeless shelter.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I honestly wouldn't care if I was considered homeless or not. A car or cardboard box or shelter is better than nothing.
I try not get caught up in technicalities.
If there was some perk in being in the goverment's definition of "homeless," and if that perk was greater than say, living in a car, then I would abandon the car and get the help of the government.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oxford University had a cool thing where students spent the night outside to raise awareness of homelessness, and raise money for shelters. I think that is a neat idea. I think we should all spend the night outside without shelter from time to time so we understand what it's like, and to show solidarity with those who don't have a place to live. How can we even guess what it must be like unless we've done that?
I would guess it's not too bad in places where it doesn't get very cold. I can't imagine how people survive in most of the country, though. I once saw a homeless person washing his face in an icy cold stream of water coming off a downspout in midwinter here. (Here is Birmingham, Alabama, one of the warmest cities in the country, of course, and yet the idea of spending a winter night outside is not one I can even fathom much less relish.) I think homeless people must be made of tougher stuff than me. (The ones that survive their first homeless winter, that is.) I can't even imagine what that would be like in some place like Boston or Chicago, for instance.
I think cities would be ashamed of being known as mean, so I think this is probably a good way to go about bringing pressure to bear to change the laws. It seems to me that cities don't have to go out of their way to make life worse for the very most vulnerable segment of the population. Even if the percentages are very low, shouldn't we still address these people's needs? Some of them are children, in fact, and others are just people who have had some bad luck but don't have family or church or other connections to pull them through as most of us do. Some are mentally ill, and others are addicts. It doesn't seem like too much to ask that we with all our wealth and material comforts in this country could be kind to those with the least power of all of us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I try not get caught up in technicalities."
Tell you what, then. Next time you're living out of your car, give me a call and we'll have this conversation again.
*rolls eyes*
Seriously, you appear to grossly misunderstand the phenomenon of homelessness. Why?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Yea, Tatiana, go out and chase some homeless guy off his bench to show solidarity and compassion, that has got to be the stupidest idea that floats around out there. Why don't you invite one into your home one day a year? Given the percentages if everyone did that they would all have a place to stay!
Most are mentally ill and addicts not some, take a look and the percentages. They make great company on a winter night, stealing your things, smelling bad and shooting up in your basement.
If you want to consider lack of compassion then forget the Urban areas, they all at least recognize a homeless problem, I know that my county just buys homeless people a Greyhound ticket south. Passing the Buck.
As for tents and living outside, well sister I have been grateful to come back to my tent many nights and I have been outside in so much bad weather that I think God has a special need to rain on me. It did not give me more compassion for the homeless, nor did it elevate my consciousness, it just made me itch.
I remember when Charlie Sheen was honorary Mayor of Palm Beach and declared the city "Home to the Homeless" and to show his solidarity and compassion, he too spent nights pushing homeless men off the best heat vent to prove his charity. Of course some cynics called his bluff and loaded homeless on Greyhounds to be dropped off in the upscale town, the busses were turned away.
There is a problem but given the numbers it is a local one not one we all need to get up and shout about. For my part I give any man down on his luck a Subway sandwich and whatever clothes I have that he might fit. But the local charities have so much donated clothing and food that they shred most for rags to sell to factories and throw most of the food away.
Anyone with a child can get free housing here if they are homeless, and food and health care and school, I have never seen a woman with a kid begging.
BC
[ November 15, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Seriously, you appear to grossly misunderstand the phenomenon of homelessness.
Not having any place to live. What's being misunderstood? What's your definition of the phenomenon of homelessness?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And you would include cardboard boxes, tents, and cars as places to live?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Gila Bend Arizona has got to be the meanest city.
Their homeless people all died or moved to Tempe a long time ago.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Tatiana said
quote: How can we even guess what it must be like unless we've done that?
I dont think I can judge what is or is not homeless without experiencing it myself.
I bet the homeless people who have nothing consider the people living in camps as having "a place to live."
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think the reason they try to give publicity to the meanest cities is that if they went the other direction, that is, if they awarded "kindest cities to the homeless" awards, then the city officials would most likely think "Oh no! We don't want our city to be known as kindest to the homeless! All the homeless in the country will want to come here!" and consequently decrease their services. However, being known as meanest is a blot, I think, which cities would try to avoid.
I believe the police and city officials are, in fact, pretty mean to the homeless in most cities. The homeless are not wanted anywhere. They're rounded up and shoved out of sight before any sort of public event, for instance, so as to not make the city look bad.
Why is it that we always seem to reserve our very worst treatment in this country for the powerless? Shouldn't we treat the weak and powerless the most tenderly and kindly of anyone? Can't the powerful take care of themselves? Why do the powerful always see our best respect and goodness, while we save our spurns and kicks for the helpless? That's not right.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I bet the homeless people who have nothing consider the people living in camps as having "a place to live."
It's more likely they consider the camps as the place in that area that people who are homeless crash for the night. Once one person finds a place they can sleep the night and not get kicked out or arrested, others follow suit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why is it that we always seem to reserve our very worst treatment in this country for the powerless?"
The simple answer is this: the reason people pursue power is to obtain better treatment for themselves. Ergo, if the powerless received better treatment than the powerful, the concept of power would become meaningless.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I don't think the PEOPLE of those cities are being called mean, though. Just the city officials, the police, and so on. Does that help?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Yea, Tatiana, go out and chase some homeless guy off his bench to show solidarity and compassion, that has got to be the stupidest idea that floats around out there.
Nope. Not a troll at all.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Icky, did someone post that? My my my! Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
There's a passage in the Bible about people who "join house to house" until there is no room for outsiders.
One problem with this country is that every square inch of property and every tree and shrub and wild animal is owned by somebody. You can't just load your stuff in a wagon and take off in search of a place to make a living, and you can't live off the land like people used to do.
There has always been a niche for bedouins, migrants, travelers, and mountain men in this world, and there have always been people suited for that niche. When we selfishly join house to house and close out that niche then we have problems.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Another reason for the colonization of space... so there will be new frontier lands for those who don't find our existing societies congenial... places to try out new ideas for societies, and wild places where no humans have ever been. We need to colonize space!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: There has always been a niche for bedouins, migrants, travelers, and mountain men in this world, and there have always been people suited for that niche.
The problem is that the majority of homeless people aren't bedouins, migrants, travelers, or mountain men. They are people who have mental illnesses, were unable to pay the rent, or were kicked out of their homes.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
On a side note, I found the google ad at the bottom ... interesting:
Homeless People Yahoo! Shopping: Compare & Save Top brands, great stores, low price
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mine's even better:
Make $250,000 on eBay! Papers on the Homeless!
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:RRR: They are people who have mental illnesses, were unable to pay the rent, or were kicked out of their homes.
Such people used to colonize entire continents.
Rent and kicking out is exactly what I'm talking about: owners putting the squeeze on non-owners.
[ November 15, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yep, for instance, in Australia, it's very cool if you can trace your lineage back to convicts deported from England. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Mine are the best. Wi-fi, cause you know, no house = need for wireless internet, and E-Bay Success Kit! I could become a Power Seller overnight! Now, if only I had stuff to sell.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"If 200/572000 [ie 7per20thousand] people are homeless, and that is the meanest city in the country, is it really that big of a problem?"
When people aren't willing to give (or to be taxed) $0.07per$200.00 of spending to shelter the homeless*, I'd say that it is a sign of BIG problems in the way folks are raised ethically&morally.
* Which would raise those folks to an average standard of living. Which is also far more than what even bleeding heart liberals would consider sufficient. But then there are probably far more homeless than stated. Many of the homeless are expert at camouflaging their condition; only the most obvious are counted.
"I have never seen a woman with a kid begging."
I have. Or rather her ~6year old daughter accosted me on a supermarket parking lot. I asked where her mother was, and was led ten yards to the corner of the store, around, then another ten yards to the main entrance. Met a woman with three more kids: one a bit younger, one just a bit older, and a toddler. No, she wasn't homeless. Told me the 6year old had momentarily slipped her attention while she was attending the others, and she was broke cuz someone stole her purse just after she had cashed her check. Gave the woman three twenties, told her to take a break, to go into the store to buy some food, and to think about how she had endangered her kid, was endangering her kids. That she should check on local churches and food banks. Took maybe half a minute of her time and said nothing else. Twasn't my place.
Did I get taken? Possibly. But not really: my concern was for the little girl, then and there. Never saw them begging in the neighborhood again. But then that particular supermarket is one I went to only as a quick stop for an item or two not found in a convenience store, not for real shopping.
Still like to think it actually helped. And from the number of people who have tried to pay me back*, some folks have appreciated it. Told 'em to keep it, and to remember when somebody asks them for help.**
* Which is weird cuz both the original circumstances and the remeetings are usually far from each other, and far from where I normally hang out. And I tend not to remember their faces; maybe they are mistaking me for someone else. Or maybe not, I am rather distinctive.
** Not applying for sainthood here. Always mentally write it off before giving or offering anything to anybody cuz I know I'm fulfilling my desire of the moment. Besides, I'm especially fond of memories which the "smart people" would call "being a chump".
[ November 16, 2004, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: When people aren't willing to give (or to be taxed) $0.07per$200.00 of spending to shelter the homeless, I'd say that it is a sign of BIG problems in the way folks are raised ethically&morally.
Are you saying that a tax like this was repealed by the people of Little Rock? Because I didn't see it mentioned in the article.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: When people aren't willing to give (or to be taxed) $0.07per$200.00 of spending to shelter the homeless, I'd say that it is a sign of BIG problems in the way folks are raised ethically&morally.
I am willing to give that, but I'm not willing to be taxed that and force others to give it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If you oppose giving that amount in taxes, you don't wanna give it at all. And if you oppose others paying that much in taxes, you firmly believe that the government should reward people for being mean, small-hearted, stingy, selfish, miserly, penurious, uncharitable, shabby, greedy, rapacious, sordid, niggardly, and low. Cuz that is what the government is currently doing: indirectly taxing people who have a heart -- ie extorting those who feel compelled to give by the plight of the homeless -- to subsidize (the social benefits of having fewer homeless for) the heartless.
And no, kaioshin00. I'm saying that the problem as stated* could be solved for that amount. And the fact that the majority of people don't demand that it be solved in a charitable manner -- prefering to spend money to chase the homeless off rather than to help them -- reflects a poor ethical/moral upbringing.
* And no, I don't think the real problem would be solved that easily. However, having enough room to shelter the homeless is a basic minimum to solving the problem.
[ November 15, 2004, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you oppose giving that amount in taxes, you don't wanna give it at all.
That is not true, because I already give far more than that and am still against being taxed for that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And if you oppose others paying that much in taxes,
I don't oppose others paying that, I oppose them being forced to.
quote: you firmly believe that the government should reward people for being mean, small-hearted, stingy, selfish, miserly, penurious, uncharitable, shabby, greedy, rapacious, sordid, niggardly, and low. Cuz that is what the government is currently doing: indirectly taxing people who have a heart -- ie extorting those who feel compelled to give by the plight of the homeless -- to subsidize (the social benefits of having fewer homeless for) the heartless.
First of all, not being taxed should't be a reward -- it should be the standard unless it's decided that a tax is needed.
Second, I don't think the government should be in the buisness of making sure that people can feel good about helping the poor without them having to actually sacrifice something themselves.
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
I don't think it should be a tax. If someone wants to donate great, if not they shouldn't have to.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: prefering to spend money to chase the homeless off rather than to help them -- reflects a poor moralðical upbringing.
Who is doing this? Are these hypothetical situations?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:the way folks are raised ethically&morally
...raised to think that having a brick house on a quarter acre lot is the norm.
...raised to think that pre-packaged supermarket food cooked in a microwave is the norm.
We're not normal. Nobody in the history of the world has ever lived like this. So why do we have to take up a collection to make sure everybody else has access to these wierd things that only we value?
People have been living in huts made of wood, mud, skins, and fabric since the beginning of time. They've been surviving on whatever they could coax out of the ground for longer than that.
The government took some tax dollars and built a bunch of frame houses for some Native Americans in northern Arizona. The Native Americans store their tools in the frame house and sleep in their hogan made of mud and sticks. Homeless people don't need our money or our stuff.
Homeless people need free access to a chunk of land where they can set up a shack, start a garden, and raise some animals. Then let them use a little water, and they're set up for life.
But some evil person decided that all land that wasn't used or owned by somebody had to be owned by somebody, so he fenced it off and put up a sign.
Here's an idea:
I fly over the Texas panhandle quite frequently and notice all the dry farms, neatly sectioned off into squares. There's a well head in the middle of each square, and the irrigation system rotates in a circle around that well head. The circular area under irrigation doesn't quite fill the whole square. There's a nice little plot of land in each corner of the square that isn't used for growing cash crops. One corner of the square might have the farmer's house, a barn, some outbuildings, and a garden, but the other three corners remain unused and go to weeds. Each of those unused corners is at least an acre, and we already know that there's ground water under there. So why don't those nice farmers give their unused corners to ambitious homeless people?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think it should be a tax. If someone wants to donate great, if not they shouldn't have to.
There is moral relativism.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No it's not. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a)you should help the homeless and b) you should not force others to do the same.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The moral stand is that "We are a city that helps the homeless because it's the right thing to do."
The moral relativist thinks that it's up to them to decide.
[ November 15, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My moral stand is "I am a person who is generous with what I have to those that need my help".
And that was up to me to decide.
[ November 15, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yep
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I also think it's up to each individual to decide. It's not up to you or me to decide it for them.
But it's still wrong if they make the wrong decision.
That's not moral relativism.
[ November 15, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
If I think donating to something is right and I have the money to do it, I am going to and that is right. I don't think it is right for me to tell you that you have to donate to it because I think it is right. That is something you have to figure out for yourself.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Guys, it's not up to you or me to decide whether it's right, that is, unless you are a relativist.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That don't make no sense.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes it does.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Cities are about as beneficial for the homeless as Yellowstone Park campgrounds are good for bears, or garbage dumps are good for seagulls. Animals are supposed to scratch and dig for a living.
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
I'm still curious about how this group defines "mean" and where they derive their statistical data. I also wonder if the group making this observation is referring to the Atlanta city government or to the overall population of the city and its suburbs. The Atlanta city government, as it runs currently, has very little cash for programs supporting the homeless. Heck, they can't even pay their firefighters adquately. I wouldn't say their mean so much as they are BROKE!
As far as the people of Atlanta, I see a lot of people working very hard to help those in need. There are many programs that are supported by private groups and individuals to help the homeless. The Hosea Williams Feed the Hungry Thanksgiving Dinner comes to mind, MUST ministries from Marietta, Disciples Missions Food Pantry---all run in the hopes of helping a hungry family, or guiding someone to work and a place to live.
I don't see Atlanta as mean--I see it as a place of refuge--if you know where to look.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Contrary to popular beleif, the majority of the Homeless people in this country are not the mentally disabled or chronic drung addicts.
The majority of homeless people in this country are children.
They are the children of single mothers. They are the children of fathers who ran off because they didn't want to be fathers. They are the children of abused mothers who left their abusive husbands while they could still walk, and while their children were not yet beaten into submission.
I am not talking wildly. I would like all of you to meet Cheri.
She is a woman that I worked with. She made a little less money than I did, though we had the same job. But her Husband divorced her, and because her lawyer missed an important meeting, she signed papers that have her paying alimony and child support to him, so much of her check goes to supporting a man who makes more money than she does.
The rest goes to pay for hospital bills for her son, recovering from Luekemia. Yes, she was living with another man a few years after her marriage ended, and she got pregnant. Big mistake because they were not married. On the other hand, the man she chose abused her, stole from her, and is now wasting away in jail.
Big mistakes on her part.
But she had to quit her second job to take care of her son, which meant she had no money to pay her rent.
That is why she is homeless, living in her car for a while, and now in a shelter for abused women until they kick her out at the end of the year.
She recently got a raise, so maybe she can afford to find a cheap apartment somewhere and still make the payments she needs to for her child support and medical bills.
The average homeless person only spends a year or two homeless, while they get their tattered lives turned around. But without help they can't get those lives turned around. When you spend 18 hours a day trying to find a safe place to sleep for you and your children, you don't have much time to find a job, or a better job because a dishwashing job at minimum wage still won't get you enough money to rent an apartment.
And whether your in a fragile tent or a cardboard box, when it gets below freezing it will still kill you, when you try to get a job and they request an address, you still have nothing to put in the form, when school for your kids ask for your address, you still have nothing to put in the form, when you unemployment check or "welfare" check is in the mail, it has no address to go to.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Wells said.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I dont think anyone here disagrees with helping the homeless.
I just think that this study isn't the way to go about fixing the problems, calling certain cities "mean" and what not.
Jess N had a good point with
quote: The Atlanta city government, as it runs currently, has very little cash for programs supporting the homeless. Heck, they can't even pay their firefighters adquately. I wouldn't say their mean so much as they are BROKE!
Maybe this group can take their knowledge of where homelessness is most rampant, and try to raise funding for it, instead of condemning certain cities.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know, if they just trained the homeless to be firefighters, they could live at the fire station and the city would save money by not having to keep the firefighters they are paying now. Win/win.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)