Who gave money to a homeless person over this holiday?

i'm not thinking critically??? first off, i'm not sure any of my "thoughts" were addressed to you at all...i merely asked you a question...second of all, you can spend your life "thinking critically" all you like...cuddle up next to your "critical thinking" every night if you wish, though i think you'll find it leaves you awfully cold. don't throw your thinking and your aggrandized intelligence around like it's a weapon...this isn't about technicalities or advanced studies at Rice...this is about real human beings who at 2:14 p.m. are hungry, cold and homeless. ignore the truth of the moment all you want, but it doesn't change the fact. i totally agree that we have to find better solutions for dealing with the homeless...but to pretend that a warm meal for someone on a cold night is a bad investment because it doesn't pick them up out of their problems is asinine. it ignores the short-term temporal problems that person is dealing with RIGHT NOW. ignore that all you want...but don't criticize those who choose not to ignore that.

 

you're right...i didn't read the entire thread...but your post stands, nonetheless. and so does mine.

 

An immediate idea that comes to mind would be some type of work camp, where the homeless would provide cheap labor. This would benefit the homeless in that they could learn a trade or skill, and would benefit society by lowering prices of goods for consumers (by reduced labor expense).

Isn't "work camp" just a fancy way of basically saying slavery / indentured servitude? Basically, you would round all of the homeless up and require them to work at below-legal wages?

 

Its not saying that at all. Its giving them an opportunity to work and earn a living.

 

I think he meant more in the way of government jobs. People could learn skills and since it's government there really wouldn't be a problem with layoffs. It would probably be inefficient and it would cost taxpayer money but if it gets people improving their own lives then it could be a good idea. It has been proposed before.

 

The scenario would most likely unfold like this:

1) A law is passed which prohibits panhandling and sleeping in public places in Houston.
2) Homeless are given the opportunity to avoid going to jail by volunteering for a work camp.
3) The work camp would pay below market wages (much like prisons).
4) The work camp would get clearance to pay below market wages because part of the compensation received by the homeless would be training.

Think of it as going to a technical school free of charge. Can someone please tell me how this proposed solution is worse than letting people stand on the street, endangering the community and themselves, and living a life of booze and drugs?

 

I like the idea of creating a coupon system, in conjunction with inner city grocery and convenience stores. These coupons could be exchanged for food only, and provide an increased profit for the retailers.

ex- I buy a 2 dollar coupon for $2.20, that can be exchanged for food (.20 goes to program maintenance). On the back of the coupon could be printed an inspirational message, and directions to the nearest shelter. If the community got together behind this idea, and we all passed out one coupon a month in an effort to funnel people to a shelter where REAL help could be given, this city potentially could lower crime and improve its national image greatly.

Problems-

1. would stores want to participate? they would basically be inviting homeless people into their stores.

2. would the homeless even react to this program? do they even want food, or would they throw the coupons away and steal for booze and drugs.

3. would the homeless simply exchange 2 dollar coupons for a 1.50 in cash, and buy booze and drugs anyway?

This idea is full of holes, but it is at least an improvement over our current inner city situation.

 

TJ, I like your idea alot, as long as the camps are operated by private companies.

 

I think this is a heated issue because we are talking about two issues:
aggressive panhandling vs the homeless epidemic in America.


Although they go hand in hand, you cannot blame someone who is on the streets and write them off as a "crackhead."

however, living in New YOrk, I witness first hand on a DAILY basis people going from one subway car to the next telling their same sob story with the same angle: that they are different than the other panhandlers, and if you hear them out, you should be automatically compelled to "give".

these people are bottom feeders, but they are not the same people at the shelters and the soup kitchens, I think we need to see the difference






Cities crack down on panhandling

(AP) -- Cities across the nation are cracking down on aggressive panhandling, even restricting panhandlers to designated "blue box" sections of sidewalk, at the same time hard economic times are driving up the numbers of homeless.

Advocates for the homeless warn of discrimination against the needy. But from Florida to California, community leaders are passing ordinances to curb what they see as a wave of intimidating panhandlers crowding the sidewalks and jostling shoppers.

"You basically couldn't walk down the street without being aggressively panhandled," said Deputy Chief Ross Robinson of Asheville, North Carolina, a small mountain city that has drawn growing number of outdoors-lovers, from retirees to young mountain-bikers -- and people asking for spare change.

"When a reasonable person begins to wonder about their own safety, it's time to stop. It's past time to stop," Robinson said.

Asheville passed an ordinance earlier this month barring aggressive panhandling, with fines of up to $500 and up to 20 days in jail for people with at least five prior misdemeanors.

Asheville isn't alone. Anti-panhandling ordinances -- as well as rules barring sleeping on sidewalks -- have been put in place in recent months in Lakeland and Orlando, Florida; Eugene, Oregon.; and Santa Cruz, California Proposals are being discussed in Reno, Nevada, and Cincinnati, Ohio, as well.

Homeless advocates say enforcement misses the point.


"What we propose is that cities address the problem rather than criminalizing the people," said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homeless & Poverty. "Not all people panhandling are homeless. But by and large, people who are begging on the streets are very poor."

Bans, fines or punishment for panhandlers or the homeless are not new. But the latest actions come as states suffer their weakest economy in decades. Many cities say their financial ability to meet the need for food and shelter -- up by 20 percent in some places -- is falling, according to a survey in mid-December by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

New York City has seen a record number of homeless, with an average of 37,000 a night in city shelters, up from an average 21,000 in 1998. And that doesn't count people who sleep outdoors.

City and business leaders said they're trying to come up with plans that don't simply sweep away the problem.

In Orlando, Mayor Glenda Hood just held a three-day conference with churches, service providers, the homeless and their advocates, and law enforcement to discuss solutions.

Orlando last summer passed a law barring people from sitting or lying on downtown sidewalks, with violators fined $500 and sent to jail for 60 days. Panhandling was restricted to "blue boxes" drawn on downtown sidewalks.

City leaders said it works; advocates for the homeless disagree.

"I've seen no evidence from anyplace in the country that the kinds of ordinances that were passed here are effective in solving anything," said Robert H. Brown at the Coalition for the Homeless in Orlando, which runs a 650-person shelter.

Brown said enforcement should be combined with better services; "that makes great sense."

Foscarinis, who tracks government actions regarding the homeless, sees a civil rights issue.

"The enactment of laws targeting begging is rife with potential for discriminatory enforcement," she said. A well-dressed person asking for money won't be looked at as quickly as someone who looks homeless; a business person taking a nap on a bench won't be arrested, but a homeless person will, she said.

"It's a sign of an ongoing crisis, and maybe a deepening crisis resulting from the declining economy and rising housing costs," she said.

City and business leaders, however, said that they can't ignore the economic damage intimidating panhandlers can have.

"Our downtown, like a lot of downtowns, is now a neighborhood," said Hood, in Orlando. "People are living there, raising their family there. They didn't feel safe because of the gathering of homeless individuals."

The laws are not about punishing the poor for their poverty, city leaders said. Most aggressive panhandlers choose begging as a profession, said Cincinnati City Manager Valerie Lemmie.

"One tends to assume the panhandler is homeless and more often than not has a social service need that's driving the panhandling," Lemmie said. "If you look at the police data, it's not necessarily the case."

Most downtowns, like Cincinnati's, are safe, she said. But an aggressive panhandler can create a very different impression. Downtown Cincinnati Inc., a private business group, has hired "ambassadors" to help police keep a more wholesome atmosphere on city streets.

Community leaders there also are exploring the possibility of requiring panhandlers to register, as Dayton, Ohio, did several years ago.

"We're not going to solve homelessness," said Hood, who on Saturday was named as Florida's next secretary of state. "Unfortunately that will always be a part of a community's life. ... It's not an easy issue."



---------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Issue founder: Begging is bad


LONDON, England -- The founder of a UK magazine aimed at supporting the homeless has said people should not give money to beggars.

John Bird, who was on the streets himself for several years, said giving money to beggars was the "soft and damaging option."

Instead, more should be done to find suitable accommodation, he said.

The comments came in a pamphlet published by rightwing thinktank Politeia.

He was quoted in the British press as saying: "Why do schemes to help the homeless invariably flop, leaving them in the cold outdoors?...The homeless remain out of doors because they are allowed to remain there."

Anti-begging and anti-vagrancy laws were failing because there was no suitable alternative place for the homeless to go.

"We cannot enforce the laws unless we make sure there is provision in place, an alternative to begging and street living ... At the moment there is not enough suitable accommodation," he added.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AND FINALLY , Homeless cruise ships in New YOrk City as an option?



N.Y. considers floating homeless shelters


NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York City officials flew to the Bahamas Wednesday morning in Mayor Michael Bloomberg's private jet to assess the possibility of using retired pleasure cruise ships docked there as homeless shelters.

The "fact-finding mission" was a preliminary step by the Department of Homeless Services in determining the feasibility of the idea, and the department was not likely to decide anytime soon whether the city's homeless will be docked in the river, said spokesman Jim Anderson.

The idea came from the Bloomberg administration, said Anderson, as a creative way to tackle New York City's all-time high homeless numbers. About 67,000 people, including 16,000 children, stay in shelters each night in the city, according to Anderson.

Department of Homeless Services Commissioner Linda Gibbs and Bloomberg's chief of staff, Peter Madonia, led other city officials on the mission to look at a small number of cruise ships owned by various companies.

The group was scheduled to return to New York Wednesday evening.

 

Besides being anathema to the ideals of free will that our country prides itself on, labor camps don't really address the core issues at the root of homelessness.

In the just-released "Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities," the United States Conference of Mayors cited the primary reasons for homelessness in America. Listed in order of prominence, they are:

-- Lack of affordable housing
-- Mental illness and the lack of needed services
-- Substance abuse and the lack of needed services
-- Low-paying jobs
-- Domestic violence
-- Unemployment
-- Poverty
-- Prison release
-- Downturn in the economy
-- Limited life skills
-- Changes and cuts in public assistance programs

The report also states: "Officials estimate that, on average, single men comprise 41 percent of the homeless population, families with children 41 percent, single women 13 percent and unaccompanied minors five percent. The homeless population is estimated to be 50 percent African-American, 35 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, two percent Native American and one percent Asian. An average of 23 percent of homeless people in the cities are considered mentally ill; 32 percent are substance abusers; 22 percent are employed; and 10 percent are veterans."

A work camp does nothing to address the needs of the mentally ill, of substance abusers, of families and of those who are currently employed but lacking in adequate, affordable housing.

In fact, once you get treatment for the mentally ill and substance abusers, the key seems to be more affordable housing and a higher minimum (or a living) wage. Forcing people to live in a pseudo debtors' prison and work for a sub-standard wage seems a long way from a true (or just) solution.

 

But didn't you just say that unemployment is one of the main causes of homelessness? Surely you can see a direct link between a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment. It doesn't take Milton Friedman to point that out. If the labor market were actually based on market forces, and free of intervention (minimum wage and unions), then homelessness would be drastically reduced.

 

If the labor market were actually based on market forces, and free of intervention (minimum wage and unions), then homelessness would be drastically reduced.

No, because you assume that any job will provide enough income to afford housing. As Mrs. JB pointed out, affordable housing is an issue. You might get more people employed with no minimum wages, but you also very likely will get more people earning less than necessary to afford housing - creating an even larger homelessness problem.

 

I often used to give money directly to these folks, but was asked once by a local once (while visiting Santa Barbara) to please give to a shelter instead. I thought that was quite rational, and I took her advice, mostly.

We do give to charities that help disadvantaged/mentally unstable, but I reserve the right to give directly to someone that when I feel they really need it (and FWIW, it is NEVER one of those idiots at stop lights in Austin; that's just plain BS).

But I might pass someone who just looks at me, does not ask for money, but looks lost and hungry. I'll damn well give them money if I so choose.

Once I passed a guy like that, and felt bad becuase I didn't give him anything. On the pavement by my car was a wad of money, I think $100-$200...I didn't count it (I've never found that much money before). I ran back to the guy and handed it to him. It wasn't my money and I didn't need it; I felt it was intended for him.

I get amused by this severe 'let'm all take responsibility for themselves'. I understand and agree to a point; if someone's just lazy, let'm walk around on the street. But I imagine that many of these folks have a physically-based mental problem; not something self-controllable. We should all be thankful that we weren't born with such.

Interestingly, some Eastern religions teach that as one get's closer to God, you lose the ability to function in the physical world and appear insane to others. For the sake of some of you heartless bastards I hope they're wrong.

 

WRONG. If the labor market were only subject to market forces, the economic would be *much* more efficient, and overall wealth would be greater. This would provide an economic stimulus which would filter down to all levels. Productivity would benefit as well, as union employees are forced to improve the quality of their effort, further increasing economic growth. It would be a classic example of a rising tide lifting all boats.

 

Well this year my family and I decided to donate to a local ministry. We went out and bought lots of foodstuffs and I took it over last week.

Unfortunately the ministry's hours are 2p - 4p, which I found very awkward. Because of the hours I had to break away from work around the ministry's closing time. I arrived about eight minutes before closing and can you believe that they yelled at me that they were closed? I wondered to myself how I would feel if I had arrived to receive service and was yelled at instead.

Anyway, I explained to them that I was there to leave a donation and that the foodstuffs were in the truck. So they agreed to allow me to unload everything.

It felt great! It was the first time doing that on my own instead of through an organized event. What hit home for me was seeing people there awaiting and being served. At times during my childhood, I was one of those being served.

I left there vowing to make it a monthly habit of donating something. It'll be my New Year's resolution. I would recommend it to everyone!

 

awesome!! thanks for sharing that!!!!

 

How can you be so certain that it helps everyone afford a home?

E.g., home prices have skyrocketed in Austin, but many people still make mimimum wage. Or worse, even teachers have a problem buying homes here now.

How does that fit in your logic? (And if you tell me that this occurs because it is not a 'pure' market, I will respond with "there is no such thing as a 'pure' market"). So what is it?

 

WRONG. If the labor market were only subject to market forces, the economic would be *much* more efficient, and overall wealth would be greater.

Of course, overall wealth at the top doesn't really translate to helping the needy. History shows that.

This would provide an economic stimulus which would filter down to all levels.

Of course, there is no evidence that supply-side economics actually works. There's no evidence that a rising tide lifts all boats, except in the case of actual water and actual boats. It's all a nice theory that is facing increasing counterevidence as the gap between the poor and rich and the amount of wealth concentrated in the richest few continue to grow even as the economy flies forward.

 

Your example is very misleading. You can not use the health of the housing market as a proxy for the health of the economy. Over the past 2 years, you can argue that real estate has been the area of strength in our economy. This is primarily a function of low interest rates, not economic prosperity. Therefore, your coorelation is invalid.

 

I agree very much with TJ's methodology of thinking and feel that we must do what we can to limit the problem and not just satisfy the end results.

The problem TJ is that as great as many of your ideas are, they are not possible at this time.

What I think we need to reflect on is not : "whether we gave money to panhandlers", but more on what we did to help our community this Holiday season.

I am a Vice President of a Rotary Club in Northwest Houston and we sponsor families every year. I don't allow it to be a handout for my four families though. To recieve certain gifts and to stay on the lists we recieve from the school districts they must show an increase in drive to change and rectify their situation. Predominantly they are single mothers with multiple children or elderly women taking care of grandchildren.

Helping them to create a resume, build up job skills and better their lives is our motive. I often take several in my office and pay them minimal amounts and have them trained in basic office duties that are required and office attire and mannerisms. I implore any of you to join a Rotary club and try to get involved with helping the community.

Lets change this thread to what we have done this Holiday season to better our community and our world versus the solution to the homeless!

Happy Holiday's to Everyone BTW !