Major, it's not as much about me giving them mooney or not giving them money as it is him threatening me and compromising my safety. Absolutely -- all I'm asking is that you don't transfer that experience to ALL homeless people. There are some jerks out there, certainly, but there are also some truly needy and appreciate people as well.
As much as I feel for the situation of the homeless, I am very much for this type of ordinance. NO, I don't feel its ALWAYS the homeless individuals choice, a majority have mental, and or social problems that many of us could never fathem. BUT, I feel that it is my right not to get badgered everywhere I go i.e. Gas stations, ATM Machines, or anywhere downtown. I should not have to tell someone to stop washing my window, as much as I feel for their situation ( I give annually to the Salvation Army and other groups that sponsor food and living arrangements in the downtown area) it is a hassle and it is impossible to go downtown without being constantly pestered for money. Most the corners in downtown smell like urine, are full of people curled up sleeping there and it is bad for the business. The companies and/or evening establishements want them off of their property, and if it is their business that is being affected and it is their property then so be it. I own part of the office building in which my company presides, and though we are in Northwest Houston, we had solicitors until we began calling the police on them. It adversely affected our business having 20 chinese take-out restaurant hand outs on our door and or coming in every week. The worst is when you are getting gas, because you HAVE to sit there and hear their bull**** story about, my car broke down and I need to get on the bus. From the representatives that I spoke to at the Salvation Army, it is wrong to give homeless people on the road money because not only does it push the practice, but many are drug users and/or alcoholics, that would be better suited going to a shelter.
How does "reality" apply to that directive? Just because you have encountered problems with some homeless people, does that change Jesus' command to help them? It doesn't change anything. If Jesus had decided, "Well, in reality, these lepers are nasty so I'm going to ignore them," it wouldn't have had much impact, would it? I asked a police officer I know and they are not particularly in favor of this ordinance. He told me that homeless people are more likely to be VICTIMS of assault and harrassment than they are to be perpetrators of those crimes. He also said that, technically, NO ONE is allowed to harrass you near an ATM or parking meter. Solicitation in a most public places without a licence is against the law. This is more of a case of city council trying to look good than putting real systems in place to benefit citizens. Keeping that in mind, does anyone have a suggestion about a place where a homeless man might go for work. I have tried to help out this guy who usually hangs near Heights and Washington. He has a dog which means he usually cannot stay in a shelter and he has had trouble finding work. He said he would pick up trash, do yard work, whatever. Any suggestion - including church work/rehab programs you know of - is appreciated.
He also said that, technically, NO ONE is allowed to harrass you near an ATM or parking meter. Solicitation in a most public places without a licence is against the law. Agreed -- much of the stuff that people are complaining about in this thread are already illegal. The one that's not can't be made illegal (people coming up and talking to you). I don't think simply saying "well, you're likely to commit crimes here, so we're going to make it a crime for you to be here" is really a good solution.
You know what pisses me off about this the most? It isn't how people act towards the homeless or feel about them. To each his own. What bugs me is the fact that there are men, women and children LIVING ON THE STREETS OF HOUSTON and the only thing our civic leaders can think to do about it is to ban them from sleeping on the sidewalk, panhandling and "dumpster diving." How out of whack are our priorities if the activities of people with no money and no home are more important to us than the fact that they exist in the first place??? Instead of actually attempting to turn people without homes into people with them, we just don't want to have to look at them. Yeah, ignoring the problem ALWAYS makes it better.
I hardly ever give money anymore. You are more likely to contribute to a homeless person's problem than provide real help. Many of the homeless have mental illnesses or addictions, or just dropped off the reality scale from some trauma or something. Most of the homeless are not families that lost their job and then just couldn't find another one. Now if I see a homeless person and I they aren't pissing on themselves or slurping on a 40, I go to the store and buy a sandwich and water and give that to them. That resolves my conflict over whether they're gonna buy drugs or alcohol with the cash I give, and definitely gives them something they can use. And its hard for them to trade a sandwich for those substances either. Of course then they can use whatever money the collect for those purposes, but I'm willing to risk that I guess. As for the sidewalk ordinance, I can't go pitch my tent in a public park in most cities, so I don't know why being poor should change that. I see no reason why some people should be forced to tolerate people stinking up their place of business, blocking entrances, or crowding them near ATMs/gas stations. It would not be true to say that 'most' homeless are threats in terms of violence, but that doesn't mean some aren't and having them camped out near places you must take out your cash does not seem to be reasonable. Having said that, a proactive solution is definitely needed to address homelessness. I think ordinances that force the homeless off the streets in conjunction with programs to help them (shelters, medical or psychiatric help, job training) is the best possible combination. If you are want to be a functioning member of society then you'd have your chance and if you don't then you don't have a right to lay down and drop out in the middle of the city.
Latest article: May 14, 2002, 3:08AM City may tell homeless to move along Downtown ban closer to becoming a reality By RACHEL GRAVES Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle A Houston City Council committee gave overwhelming support Monday to a law designed to tackle city problems with the homeless by prohibiting "Dumpster diving," "aggressive panhandling" and sleeping on downtown streets during the day. The so-called civility ordinance also would allow other neighborhoods to petition City Council for bans on sidewalk sleeping. The downtown ban would be from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. The council's Regulatory Affairs Committee voted 7-1 for the ordinance, which must go before the full City Council before becoming law. Only Councilwoman Annise Parker voted against the ordinance, saying the city has sufficient laws in place and should enforce them. A previous version of the civility ordinance was passed by committee without a recommendation last year, but Mayor Lee Brown never put it on the agenda for a vote by the full City Council. A Brown spokesman said Monday the mayor is waiting to be briefed by the police and legal departments before taking a position on the current version. Leaders of local homeless organizations gave lukewarm support to the ordinance, calling it a compromise from stricter versions considered previously. Under the ordinance recommended Monday, police must first warn offenders and inform them about where they can get help. "The city is not interested in prosecuting the violators," said David Mandell, the president and CEO for the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston and Harris County. "It seems to me that it's the city's intention to acquire resources for these individuals." But Mandell and Sandy Reese-Kesseler, executive director of SEARCH Homeless Project, said they object to the provision barring people from scavenging in garbage cans. They say that blocks one of the few ways homeless people have of making money. "A lot of homeless people do collect cans out of Dumpsters to make a living," Reese-Kesseler said. Parker said the city should enforce its littering laws if people digging through garbage leave a mess, but she is bothered by barring them from scavenging. "There are some people who survive by eating out of garbage cans," she said. The "aggressive panhandling" portion of the ordinance beefs up Houston's laws against soliciting by prohibiting people from asking for money within eight feet of ATMs, pay phones, parking meters, parking fee collection boxes or gas pumps. The ordinance also bans soliciting within eight feet of someone who asks them not to. Councilman Mark Ellis, who has pushed the ordinance as chairman of the Regulatory Affairs Committee, said it is not intended to go after the poor or the homeless. "What it does address is offensive conduct in a public place," he said. Ellis said the ordinance could help homeless people if police direct them to service groups, something all involved have said they want, but which is not a specific requirement of the law. "It has the potential to be a useful outreach tool, and hopefully it will be carried out that way," Mandell agreed. But others were skeptical about improvements from the new law. "To me, it's like trying to put a Band-Aid over cancer," said Councilwoman Ada Edwards, who voted to send the matter to the council for a vote but opposes it. "It just moves the problem from one part of town to another part of town."
Under this proposed civility ordinance, does anyone know the punishment for "aggressive panhandling"? I see a problem here in coming up with proof to convict someone of this. As in my case, how much evidence would I have needed to have the dude arrested, charged, and convicted? It would have been a case of my word against his (assuming he denied it, which more than likely he would)... Would that have been enough? (I doubt it)...
moomoo -- If I read your account correctly, all this man did was bang on your car window to get your attention. He didn't do anything to you physically or cause any damage to your vehicle. I don't see how that is cause for his arrest.
One time on the way to an Oilers' game, my father and I stopped at a McDonald's near the Dome. A homeless man approached my father asking for money...my dad smiled at him and said, "let's go in and eat together." For 30 minutes we sat with this total stranger and ate lunch with him. My dad bought him a quarter pounder, fries and a coke. Man, my dad is an amazing guy. He taught me so much from that. He told me later, he doesn't like to just hand out money to the homeless because he's afraid they'll spend it on things like alcohol and drugs. A month ago, my wife was driving my son and I home from Benningan's. We had my son's leftover chicken and fries to take home. We pulled up at a stoplight and a man was there...roughly my age...with a sign that said, "hungry." My wife grabbed the box of leftovers, rolled down the window and handed the food to the man...he smiled and said, "God bless you." We sat in silence for a second or two. I looked at my wife and tears rolled down her cheeks. I've never been more proud to be married to that woman.
Maybe it wasn't that clear in what I wrote, but it was basically assault. He was cussing me out and banging on my window like a bully, basically "calling me out." He was visibly pissed off at the fact that I didn't want to give him any money, since he did take the trouble to "clean" a corner of my windshield with an old rag with his saliva, or some other unknown fluid, on it. Ok, so I tried to fool him by motioning that the light had turned green and I was ready to drive off even though it hadn't, but does that give him the right to become aggressive towards me? And no, he wasn't banging on it in such a manner as to get my attention. Like I said, it was more like when someone tries to intimidate and pick a fight, except my window was closed so instead of shoving me, he banged on my window a couple of times, yelling "Huh!? What's up?!" each time.
I read this thread earlier today and MadMax's wife story got me thinking a bit. I went to Lunch today to Luby's with a friend and saw a homeless guy just drinking water but almost drooling over the food. So I bought an extra lunch, and brought it over to him asking if he was hungry. Before I asked he looked scared thinking I was going to tell him to get out, and he was talking to himself. He asked my "Are you sure?" , I said yes and god bless, and then he gave a nice smile and had a good lunch. As distraught as I am about constantly being harrassed downtown by bums, I feel most of them do have debilitating mental and/or physical problems. I believe that they shouldn't beg near ATM's, gas stations or other areas, or sleep in areas during the day as it is someone else's property, but we should all try to give a little, it feels really good. I know that doesn't solve the problem, homelessness is just a fact of life that can't be eliminated.
Why? Why can't we eliminate homelessness? Instead of passing worthless "civility" ordinances which only attempt to hide the problem, why can't we as a country begin to work on actually eliminating the problem? If we truly are "the greatest nation," shouldn't we, of all nations, be able to ensure that everyone who wants a home has a home?
thank you so much for letting me know this, F.D....can't tell you how hearwarming that is. You did a very nice thing...and it's great to be able to share that. Thanks! God bless you...
They aren't worthless to those who don't want to be harassed. The non-homeless have rights too. I agree we should take proactive steps to help those who are homeless, but why do their 'rights' supercede those of the people who are functioning members of a community, and society in general? Why is it illegitimate for a community to say 'we don't want you hanging out here. You do not contribute to the community, so go somewhere else unless you take steps to help yourself?' What about those homeless who refuse help? Do you think we should institutionalize those with permanently debilitating mental problems (who are likely to refuse help)? Do you think there should be no restrictions on panhandling?
Mrs. JB, The reason why the US is the most advanced nation in the world is because it is the most economically powerful. It is darwinism in the economic sence that sets this nation apart. As much as I would love for EVERYONE to have a home in this nation, having an extremely poor group is almost unavoidable. Just as there are extremes at the high end, there are extremes at the low end. If everyone was equal financially than there would be no incentive to work. Having programs to create free housing for people that are not productive members of society makes individuals more inclined to not be productive. Just as many individuals stay home, take care of their three children and recieve welfare checks because it is financially more feasible than working for 8 dollars and hour and paying for babysitting. There must be benefits and repucussions to those who are financially strong and weak in society to keep the economy strong. The Soviet Union failed because everyone had a house and worked, but had no desire to promote personal financial gain and without that, product quality does not rise and the economy fails. There are homeless shelters, places in which they can recieve meals and welfare for people that lose their jobs, but we cannot give too many handouts to unproductive members of society or the entire society will crumble. The Roman Empire finally crumbled under the weight of its own social system that gave too many benefits to citizens and immigrants without production. Socialism, in theory, sounds great but in reality it fails to maximize individuals wants and desires and will fail.
So here's the gist then...if someone is wearing a nice suit and holding a latte, they can park their ass anywhere they damn well please. But if they're wearing tattered jeans and holding a sign that says "hungry," we don't want them anywhere near us. Is that how our ideal "civilization" works? That's bullsh*t. I don't believe the rights of the homeless supercede the rights of those who have homes (or as Hayes says, "functioning members of a community"). But I believe their rights are the same as everyone elses. If I go downtown I can be legally approached by someone handing out religious literature or someone asking me to donate to a fireman's fund. So why is it illegal for a homeless person to approach me? Do the poor have less right to exist than their monied counterparts?
Khan, I'm not going to bother pointing out many of the glaring historical innacuracies in your post because it just isn't worth the time, but this quote needed a response. Where exactly are you getting your facts? Do you know anything about how much money the welfare system actually provides versus the costs associated with childcare or are you just parroting some blowhard senator whose only experience with handouts have come at the expense of Enron's former employees? The average family on welfare has 3 members, 2 of them children, according to government stats. Welfare families receive, on average, less than $500 per month in assistance. For each child, they get around $80 per month. Talk about the lap of luxury. Plus, with welfare reforms, welfare runs out after 8 months or when a job is taken. However, the job may pay only $800 per month (after taxes) because there is no living wage and minimum wage only pays $880 per month before taxes if you work 40 hours. Ever tried to afford, housing, clothing, shelter, medical bills, transportation, food and child care on $800 per month when you have 2 kids? Can't imagine it is too easy given that the poverty line is $11K per year and $800 per month only equals $9600. In Oregon, one of the richest and most progressive states in the country, as welfare roles have decreased, homelessness and food bank usage has dramatically increased. They went from welfare to work to the street. If you want to give the "only the strong survive" speech, that's fine. But, at least have the facts before you go off on a tangent about the poor not working hard enough.
Personally, Sidewalks are public property, and they should be alowed to stay there if they want to. As for digging through trash, it too again is public property, and it is not harming anyone else. All it is doing is providing their lively hood, and allowing them to live to the next day. The only problem I have is the panhandling near ATM's. I know they arn't actually doing anything to me, but it is very uncomfortable to have someone standign over my shoulder , waiting to ask me for my money. I know I dont have a "right" to not feel uncomfoprtable, but I hate saying no to homeless people, but when they see you take money out of an ATM machine, and yuo tell them know, yuo feel even worse becsaue you know they are thinking you are just a rich prick who is too money loving to spare some of your money so they can survive.
