We've already tried to put a whole bunch of homeless people into single, multi-story buildings. They're called projects. Turns out, they were unprecedented disasters. From a redevelopment perspective, about the only thing worse than an abandoned building for the neighborhood would be a housing project.

Thanks for the info on that conversation/interview!

I really hope we can cultivate that non-judgmental mentality in the community towards the homeless.

Most of this information is based upon one phone conversation with someone pretty knowledgeable on a few things but I feel that the facts are well grounded enough to share:

-The Councilman's remarks are NOT well received by the general public.

-The Mayor, in a conversation (not a press conference sort of thing, but a conversation with a reporter has (conveyed the following:

-He realized that not everyone is comfortable with going to Pavorello of the Rescue mission

-He feels that (regardless) of someones personal beliefs, problems and concerns, and stances, ---that the city has a responsibility to take care of these people.

-He has (apparently even commented,) that it's 'the Christian thing to do, -and 'judging someone as being worthy of care (or not,) is wrong, that these are people in distress who need assistance, period.'

-The main concern is to care for those who need it.

-This is what was said (by the mayor,) in or around the time of the 'Emergency Warming Sites.' being opened.

-The sites are run by the RedCross, and the RedCross is quite direct about not turning away anyone who is in need of warm shelter, etc. during the cold snap.

-There is a call out for people to take (apparently free,) transportation to these sites.

(Somebody wanna holler back on this?)

Now:
This is based upon one call, but the person who I was talking with was heavily involved with the RedCross to assist with Katrina's aid efforts, (they've been getting calls to man a 'warm up center,' but cannot due to work constraints.

What I find comforting about the whole thing is:

-Though it is a 'religious,' tac,
--the Mayor is seeing 'letting folks freeze at night,' as a crisis of faith, (I agree with him.)

---and that these individuals need care, -regardless of their religious views, their health or substance concerns,
----and is doing this (purely,) because the need exists.

This would be a direct action (and comment,) done (against and opposite,) the mentality of 'these people deserve or don't deserve help,)

Instead it's: 'these are people, we're not here to judge, we're here to help.'

-Who knows?, it may be a part of the PR... -but so long as people are getting food, warm blankets, and a place to sleep, I'm cool with it.

Kudos to the mayor for doing this.

(The conversation betw. the mayor and the reporter was within the past couple of days.)

No clue as to when the councilman, (who has made odd comments before, apparently,) spewed his most recent.

Its like referring to Hitler for a final solution. Mr Dirty Bomber has no social credentials other than hateful ones. Is this website/forum really so devoid of conciousness that Duncans
horsehockey might be taken seriously? I see the difficulty in building self esteem for a community so devoid of personal responsibility that they allow an individual of such political depravity to remain in office despite a LONG string of humiliating (for Fresno) scandals and missteps rooted in an abiding hatred for people who refuse to hate, choosing instead to love their neighbors? Do I have to point out the cheap irony of Duncan's remarks about unbalanced media coverage on the topic of homeless people having their constitutional rights abridged most heinously by a city government behaving as typically stupid as all of Duncan's infamous stunts have been to date? No matter how long you keep your eyes from blinking, you only saw the barbarians and their paid consorts remarking on what progressive actions those saints in city hall were undertaking.
To point towards Duncans hugely dishonest and entirely libelous remarks without commentary is rather shallow citizenship.
Anyone who wants to know how REALLY BAD the city is behaving, how MORONIC their rationalizations and TOTALLY FALSE their testimony has been needs to attend the hearings at the federal courthouse. They dont allow cameras, they aint broadcasting on C-SPAN, and the ONLY way anyone will have a clue about the true legal position these NAZI's have put our city in is to see it for yourself. If it werent so serious and sickening it would be the most hilarious event in the scarlet history of the Autry/Duncan axis. Mouths bigger than their brains, and hubris to spare. It must be nice to feel yourselves above the law and able to disrespect the Federal Judge who needs to take his robes off and see the real world. Surely that is how practicing nudists see it, and maybe its just that restrictive clothing that makes Duncan such a jerk?

I feel like many young people (and not just your garden variety crazy liberals) are more sensitive or at least open-minded to social issues such as these dealing with the homeless. Isn't it then counterintuitive to act in such a way when trying to lure the young professionals in to boost our economy?

..I wonder, you took the time to count them, but did you take the time to actually READ them?
-who knows, stranger things have happened.

There's a problem with this area, sometimes.

The concerns, answers, and situations need to 'soundbites,'
-with snappy results that are entertaining and tidy,
---or folks start screaming about their ADD, (or begging for paragraphs.)

File it under the same impatience and arrogance that demands presentation of a multilayered problem (like 'homelessness,' 'classism,' 'racism,' (etc.)
and will only tolerate a quick clean answer,
(like: 'Throw their stuff away, declare them a pox, they're all criminal behaviors itching to happen, and clear them away too...')

Wake up and smell the catbox...
This is an extremely intolerant part of the world.
Wish it wasn't so, but it is.
The graceful, decent, and considerate of others are being shouted down by everything but.

These are far from easy issues,
-are going to take a LOT of discussion,
-and a LOT of action
-on a LOT of people's behalf.

(Which is extremely unpopular in these parts because so few people actually want to take the time ---even less regarding others with so little 'yeild.')

If Fresno is not careful, it will become a focal point on how 'not,' to be with this issue.

-The shame of it is:
Fresno is trying so hard to loose such a stigma in California and the rest of the nation, (and everybody here is so uptight about it.)

This one issue,
-which people are now watching very closely, are revealing truly un-defensable attitudes, actions, and intent.

If things aren't handled differently, the valley will present itself as classist, (and racist,) monsters (considering how intertwined this (social,) issue is with varying ethnicities.

The sad thing of it is?
Folks will look at actions and comments (such as the councilman's, -or the garbage going on at Craigslist Rant-N-Rave,) and say: 'That's Fresno, what do you expect???!'

How much PR money is going to be needed to make that smell pretty?

2,196 words in that last post. intern material!

I just read the issued statement by the councilmember.

It warrants quite the response, but, this morning I simply do not have the time to do such... I will write of it though.

What I'm seeing (quite clearly,) are the following:

-He is stating that the city is not 'attacking homeless people,' -it's clearing up 'filth, drug addiction, prostitution, health concerns and crime.'
-He states that this is by people who have houses, (who are threatened by the presence of this filth, drug addiction, prostitution, health concerns and crime.
-He states that there are many programs available, -but the people who are 'street people,' (they're not 'homeless,' they are 'street people.') ----are choosing not to avail themselves of the programs.

He then makes the distinction between 'the Homeless, who are good people who are trying and failing and need help.'
-and the 'street people,' who are basically on the same level as disease, vermin, and crime, ---ps: who 'want to live that way.'

-He then quotes talking to 'one person,' who didn't want to go to poverello or the mission because 'they were not allowed to do drugs, drink, and engage in prostitution.'

He also states that the groups that are bringing the situation to light are 'exploiting the (good homeless,) -and really don't care about (anyone,) but their own agenda.

It's amazing.

-First:
People in general are messy and disease ridden, (I remember something recently about how so many of the national parks are overloaded with 'filth,' because the latrines get maxxed out.)

-People in general if they cannot bathe and are ill (be it mentally or physically,) smell.
(People who work hard have houses vote, and are doing just great in society stink every twelve to 16 hours, stink even more when they don't brush their teeth or use deodorant, and really stink when using the bathroom... ---that's both 'good people,' and 'bad people.'

-This distinction of 'homeless person,' vs. 'street people.'
'Homeless':
---someone who is without 'home,' is someone who is without the social relationships of 'home,' (Home is an emotional and physical state of being
---it is 'human terms' and conveys tons of feelings ---being associated with 'home,' in any way is a universal thing that we all want.
-Those 'without a 'home,' are bereft of what we all want, (it evokes feelings of wanting to help.) -We all know what it's like to either have or want 'home.'
We speak of dogs and cats as 'puppies and kitties who need a home,' —not as feral.

-'Person': ---this is an individual.. This is what someone calls themselves to be considered on par with everyone. It is 'personal.'
-Putting the two together, 'A Person Without a Home.'
calls for immed. action. '...This person needs a home.' (because they are without one.)
-We all need homes.

But notice the changing of the packaging:
They are 'Street People.'
'Street'
-A Street is not a Home. A Street is a flat surface designed not for human life, but for travelling of mechanical things. (There should be no life itself on the street -Living (on) a street is incorrect.
-You live in a house
-You live in a trailer or apartment
(and you are located on a Street.. ---but there is no emotional tie-in whatsoever between persons and streets, (other than it is merely a place to ride, drive, or walk.)
-mentally: this sets up the mind 'Street: Cars, Busses, Motorcycles, Cold hard Surfaces, traffic and flow, places to build structures and thrive: but not somewhere where a normal (sane,) person would want to be associated with...
-So a person who 'wants,' to be a 'street person,' is automatically choosing to do something unnatural and incorrect.

But they're not called street 'persons,' -they are called 'street people.'
'People':
-it's not personal.
It is a generic classification of a mass -there is no individuality.
-because there are many (to make 'people,') We now have:

A group that is seeking to cause crime, live in filth, be in prostitution, do (bad,) drugs, spread disease and 'be on the street.'
---Right next to (good) persons who live in (homes)

How dramatic is this?

Line ten (people or persons) up.
They all smell.
They all are disheveled
They all slept outdoors last night, with temps near freezing.
(I'm broadbrushing, they don't all smell, don't all look disheveled,,,)
-Then again, every one of us, when we woke up this morning fit that bill, (how about that, only we woke up indoors where nobody could see us in that shape until we'd been able to (ahem,) freshen up a bit.)

But in that lot, with the very definition given that was discussed in the councilman's statement:
-Which one is the 'good Homeless Person,'
-Which one is the 'bad street person, (who wants to do nothing but further crime, disease, on your doorstep.)

-How do we tell the difference?
-by the standard laid down by the councilman,
-Only those who are seem at poverello and the mission are the good ones that deserve our help.
---The rest are criminals and a threat to health, safety, and basic decency...

Problem:
-What about the programs (that are anemic,) and what about those who are trying to help (even,)communicate that the programs exist -or are available (in an outreach fashion,)
----by the councilmans writings, ---even those who are seeking to help (both the good people and the bad people,) -are 'exploiting,' because of their own agenda.
---Unless these individuals are with pavorello and the mission.

Problem with this:
-The councilman takes nothing into account of one of the basics of mental illness.
-People that are mentally ill are (by definition,) are fearful, of large groups, and will often avoid contact with those who they don't know, and need to be outreached.
-As a side result of their mental illness, they not only tend to stay away from 'help,' but often cannot comprehend it -and often interpret it as a threat.
(...this would be both 'good people,' who are homeless and 'bad people,' who are 'ruining it,' for everyone.

Please note: anyone seeking to help or make the problem further known or understood (outside of the councilman's definitions,)
---is exploiting.

Something that I'm seeing, that is so scary are:
-This redefinition of the homeless away from being 'homeless persons,' to 'criminal element.' ---when you simply cannot make that distinction without
(a.) stabilization of the situation, and person,
(b.) diagnosing what their (individual) situation is.
(c.) -using the same conditions that all human beings share under the same conditions as a definer of 'bad.'
-you have people that (by nature,) want food, a place to sleep, to live in groups, some sort of protection, and relationships with other people that can and will include physical interaction, (ps: this does not rule out sex.)
---Take that same group of people, (who can, by the above criteria be a busload of college students on spring break, -or their parents...)

--Now add in:
-no money, desperate states of mind, (which could involve drugs, alch., being a drug,) and then put them in a compromised position, (not having a stable residence, high stress, etc.)
-the situation can quickly spiral into a negative one.

What I find interesting is:
All of these concerns, (even 'prostitution,' which, though wrong and damaging to onesself, -is the selling of onesself for money or conditions to further life.
—Though it is is illicit sexual behavior, it is actually a form of commerce for a desperate person.
These are (in no way,) high priced 'escorts,' who are ('funding career trainings' and such.)
What is actually a person SEVERELY in need of help, who has crumbled into compromised (dangerous,) sexual, mental, and health conditions, -is portrayed as a someone making a deliberate choice (such as a rich kid who robs banks for the thrill.) -thereby turning them into an aggressor and threat.

The whole statement is clearly presenting those who are in serious need, -as being not just a blight, but a threat and a sickness,
--- also any efforts taken by those to help them as 'exploitative.'

It stops just short of saying that 'street people deserve whatever happens to them, including throwing their stuff away,' ---and plays on the (Central Valley, ---if no California) standard of

'…They are choosing to do this, and we don't want to force our view on them, they are making CHOICES, so this is THEIR WILL to be this way.
-Notice that… they are being presented in a way that portrays them not only 'empowers and recognizes their desire to be like this,' ---but also casts their condition over as being a 'deliberate choice to bring these (horrible,) aspects to the community.'

-Long and the short of it? THEY are not the ones being attacked, They are the ones who are CHOOSING to attack society, (the homes that they live next to.)

What is really sick is:
The capacities and work that is available from povarello and the mission are woefully small for the size of the problem.

-There are (at least,) two thousand plus members of the city of Fresno who sleep outside with no decent shelter, (and that's in harsh weather such as our below freezing current evening temperatures.)

There are a huge amount of veterans who do not know that they have benefits and care afforded them, and it is not extended in this area, (whereas in other areas such as Manhattan, it is one of the few true lines of care and hope.)

The councilmans comments reflect what is possibly the most dangerous viewpoint,
----which will have the greatest impact on any efforts to help anyone in the area, -be they homeless or not.

Notice this:
A whole demographic is being declared 'not worth helping, and barely worth removing, (were it not for the greater good.')
Homeless people (or their evil counterpart 'street people,' just became a virus.

He is taking what is a condition where help is just plain needed, ---and spinning it into a situation way past '…is this help deserved??,'
—and into a condition where (all in need,) are now judged and condemned.

(This is because his criteria for 'good and bad' people involved is severely flawed and presents no 'passing,' signatures.

-Worse, (again,) asking for help, or rending help (on site,) puts all of those who do so in the status of 'furthering the problem and EXPLOITING those who are being helped.'

--That means that when I'm fixing bicycles in the park, or collecting clothes, sleeping bags, or coats to give to the homeless and poor in the park I'm 'EXPLOITING THEM.'
Any group that is feeding them?
-They're 'EXPLOITING THEM' too…
(...we have an agenda, dontcha know... mine, personally? well, help them to not get sick, develop hypothermia, and be able to ride around town safely (be it to do good or bad deeds, I dont' really make that call...)
-I suppose my vegan and veggi friends are out to recruit wave after wave of likeminded folks, -thereby drying up the ranching industry... dunno. I thought they just were giving hot food to people...)

Not only will no efforts increase to assist the homeless (be they 'the homeless or street people,' ---but others will be now hesitant to assist in any (grass roots,) effort, ----because they will be seen as furthering crime, prostitution, drug use, and disease, (simply by giving them a bowl of soup.)

It's not all that well crafted.

(I mean, I can shoot holes in this mentality for hours, and I'm not especially bright.)

-But the sad part is: folks will take it as credible representation of a whole crossection of persons, -who need help now, (due to the seasonal change,) more than ever,
-who's numbers will increase, as the cost of living goes up, jobs do not cover costs, regular 'good persons,' become homeless, and are branded with the stigma that so obviously fuels the councilman's perspective.

There will be no real improvement of the issue, -only greater jeopardy for those who are homeless and desperately poor, (because they are now being vilified,)

This is one of the most blatant (yet backhanded,) broadbrushing of people who are in jeopardy that I've seen.
I don't think this is a stupid person who is just pandering to the public view.

This has been worded very carefully to appeal to those who would consider helping someone, ---but now will not because it puts society at greater risk.
Again, it takes anyone who tries to do so, (outside of the two mentioned groups,) as being predators.

With this view: It is a civic duty for all good people to rid the streets of 'street people.'
-Please mark that.
This is the core that this man is voicing and offering as proper response.

In doing this, the homeless, and those who are on the street, (for any reason,)
-just had open season declared on them, -because they are seen as nothing more than endangering criminals and potential health hazards…

I wonder, when the next group of homeless are attacked, or one of them killed, -if the comments and perspectives written by the councilman, in the hands of any credible attorney, could find him liable?

Even Councilmember Jerry Duncan has a comment on the homeless bashing.

Check out his website (www.fresno6.com) for his take.

sometimes they don't.

(That was actually one of my better constructed ones,)

At 43 I doubt there will be much change in the writing style... (though if you want to wait around another 40 years, if I'm still breathin' I'm sure senility and melting of the barriers of thought are going to make communicating a real thrill...

Doubt I'll be on Fresno Famous, (no disrespect.)
---Though it may be cool to hear Rademacher at Tokyo on a Thursday night in the year 2046...

Dear Mr. Void:

It seems like you have some important information to share, but in order for it to be received it must first find its way into paragraphs.

Sincerely,

redliner

To be honest?

Having worked in some really hard core homeless environs in Phila, NY, and NJ (professionally,) for years?
The reason why folks are calling Fresno's stance on the homeless 'barbaric,' is because, in truth, it is.
(surprise.)

It's not an easy issue.

The day they had the big camp out over at city hall, with folks saying how afwul the cops were towards homeless,
-I was back in Roeding, working with a Paramedic/Police team on getting a guy who would be classified as 'homeless,' into a hospital so they could get his levels sorted out, and get his meds going correctly..
The individual was highly self-inflictive, delusional, and growing violent...
-The police who responded to the scene were actually quite nice, professional and treated the guy with a lot of respect.
-Is this a fashionable statement to write and following the 'company line,' of crying police brutality?
No.
It was, however the truth.
They were really nice to him.
(He's doing better from what I've been told.)
-darn, so much for that stereotype...

Further?
(Regarding the throwing away of the contents of the tents and shopping trolley's?)

When a person does have all of their documentation lost or destroyed,
(and I'm not speaking of 'just knowing your social security number', which is actually nearly worthless as a form of proving one's identity.
---and such things as birth certs, prev. medical or legal histories, -and (even) outdated meds,)
---as was being done with the stuff being thrown away?
-Even in an advanced and WELL structured place like NYC, you are talking MONTHS of a case manager pursuing the documentation..
-until then you are going with heresay,
-and the person technically 'does not exist.'
---because all of their documents have been destroyed.

--In a place like Fresno, (no disrespect,) being able to reproduce or get duplicate documentation is even harder, (as I know their system is not as advanced, equipped, and funded as we had in NY.
---So all of those people who had their documentation destroyed became 'non-people,' -to a great extent when this was done, (that involves medical treatment, legal documentation, ---everything.
That move knocked them all of the map.
PS: there are no major shelters for them to reside at until they get their documentation, so they are very, very in the breeze.

(I won't even go into the psych. impact of these people having the last of their stuff destroyed, other than to say that such a thing is crippling as well.)

I think the hardest part, personally, was a conversation I had with a loved one on Thanksgiving.
An otherwise very compassionate person echoed the sort of crud you'll read on Craigs list Rant and Rave:

"-They're homeless because they want to be.
-They're homeless because they don't take advantage of programs.
-They are just looking for a handout and giving them one (even food,) is not helping them, but encouraging them to not change.
-If they are not able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, it's not EVERYBODY elses responsibility to help them.
-They have stolen shopping carts
-They are all about drugs, crime, and need to be moved on."

I was pretty shocked that this view was held by someone so close to me.
--It got wilder:
-When I pointed out that a lot of the homeless in the part are veterans who were entitled to benefits (care of Uncle,)
-I was told 'If the two (veteran) members of my family went into the programs, and depended upon the govt. to care for them,
----if they and all of their fellow veterans did this, ---the system would collapse...')

-The person was completely disregarding that the veterans held up their end of the bargain, by serving,
---as well as (most,) veterans (usually,) don't get treated at Veterans Hospitals,
--because they have outside care providers through outside insurance programs...
(VA Hospitals are not exactly cushy and refined.... but to someone who is dirt poor, has no other insurance, and needs care, ---it is life or death.)

---Back East? When I was case managing?
-when we found out that a guy was a vet,
---his whole world changed,
---because the programs were better for them and it was a real godsend...
-I'm hearing out here that such is FAR from the case.

My (loved one,) explained their stance like this:
"-People from around here came from very poor backgrounds, and a lot of them from the depression/dust bowl era...
-They are tough leather 'pull youselves up by your bootstraps,' types, who didn't ask for handouts,
---and don't give them.
-They resent anyone handling things in any other way,"
-(plus,)
(-they see 'all these illegals,' as taking advantage of the system and of the programs...)

((So now, you have generational, geographical, and racial prejudice mixing in with classism, and most of these folks don't even consider themselves 'prejudiced, -then tend to do a comparrison against Nazis, and the Klan, too.'))

Explaining to this person that the care systems (for a city this size,) are primitive, painfully small, not well advertised, disjointed, underfunded, and not able to care for the poor that they have,
----and are about to get hit with more homeless... fell on deaf ears.

What it came down to was:
-feeling that they made it on their own, they demand that everybody else needed to do the same,
-and that those who could not were (essentially,) not worth helping, -and were an affront.
---I was told that this area holds this sentiment strongly in this regard.
(I didn't need to be told, ---I've heard it and seen it a TON since moving here over a year ago.)

All that has to happen,
-for folks to genuniely hate (the area, from afar,)
-is to run into somebody blasting out about stuff like that:

-Folks will think that we're not only all about social Darwinism,
-But completely 'self-justified,' because we're also (highly) religious and righteous...
-We're also remarkably non-checked on it,
---as the majority either supports this attitude,
---or does not stand up against it.
--and when you start addressing the racism, they hold up the examples of gangs of 'races.'

Long and the short of it?
Fresno does not have to care about the rights of the homeless and the poor, and for the most part it is either unaware, -or just wants it to go away, (and that they're just manifesting their own destiny.)
---The rest of the world will see that as arrogant.
-because it is.

(And as far as 'not telling the truth about how nice the cops were, to this homeless guy? ---because it will only compromise the stance and lessen the image that we're trying to present (to demand change?)
-Exaggerations, Smearing, and Cartoons of issues and lying about it are not going to help anyone...

We've got to deal with the truth, not spin and fear.
(...and this would be on both sides.)

Or the truth will deal with us.

(...Remind me to send a round of bottled water and Alka-Seltzer to the PR Firm's table.)