I'm posting this here because I truly value the discussion that takes place on this site and think that solutions might be achieved through thoughtful discourse.
As many of you know, I am opening a restaurant in Tulsa's downtown. I've long been an advocate of our city, especially our downtown area and continue to have great hope for what Tulsa can become.
Through the process of preparing for our new location, I've been confronted by a very emotional topic. The homeless population in Tulsa is largely concentrated in our downtown area. The primary agencies and mission groups that care for the homeless are all situated downtown, many of them in the west end of the Brady District.
The desire to see downtown prosper has lead some to engage in efforts to move the homeless from downtown in to various housing units around the city. The hope, as I understand it, is to lessen the number of homeless walking the streets of Tulsa by transporting them in to different neighborhoods.
The John 3:16 Mission has applied for permits to add new beds to their mission. These beds would allow for around 60 more people to sleep in the mission at night. As of now, they have a lottery where numbers are drawn and those without are forced to sleep outside. The mission also offers very little service to women as they can't have mixed housing. The new beds would create a place for women and children that they do not currently offer.
The same advocates of moving the homeless out of downtown, are opposed to this expansion of the mission and are fighting the permit. They want to see a more appealing and comfortable downtown and are aware that the homeless do not contribute to appeal and comfort.
There is a great deal to discuss here, and I'll hold off on my whole opinion until a bit later just to save space and get the flow going.
My question to you all is this: The problem of homelessness is not lost on Tulsa, and its presence may in some ways affect the development of downtown. How do we best deal with issue?
I know that this topic is somewhat controversial and is emotional. I hope that in the midst of this, our conversation can lead to progress.
Shipping them off to other places worked for San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/28/BAGHUGV3AG1.DTL
Quick points more to come later.
- Blocking this permit is silly
- Better communication with said homeless people about all the services out there to help them back on there feet
- Charles Page Foundation and there homes (Yes they have more the group homes and battered womens homes)
- More support from businesses and residents in the area for the services (Not money per say but time to educate people is needed)
- Arresting Solicitors (More on this later)
- Better educating the police and more guys on the streets (yes I know about the extra bike cops need more though)
Again just some fast points before I leave for a bit.
Downtown and North Tulsa have been carrying the burden for the whole city. There is such a concentration of homeless services in these areas now that they have become a real barrier to improving downtown and North Tulsa.
I would like to see the city strive for justice and share the burden with the rest of the city. There is a great deal of poverty concentrated in areas of south Tulsa and I would especially like to see south Tulsa carry its share of the load.
I wholeheartedly agree with the need to help people get back on their feat. However, John 3:16 does not discriminate against people who are habitual or dead-beat homeless. They help everyone - which is admirable in it's own right, but also enables a person to remain a bum in downtown Tulsa in perpetuity.
The fact of the matter is, and I raise this each time this discussion comes up, there is a certain percentage of homeless who find it easier to live on the street. Either because they do not want to give up drugs, they like the lifestyle, or are scared to do otherwise. IMHO, giving those people more amenities only helps to encourage the lifestyle as well as entice them to stay in downtown Tulsa.
Arresting solicitors doesn't really help (though I support it, oddly). What difference does it make to a homeless man if he spends the night in jail with meal or in a shelter with a meal? The deterrent effect is not there.
I guess my position could be summarized as open arms and abundant help for people actually trying to get on their feet. Help with drug addiction, a place to stay, mental services - whatever we can provide to make them a productive member. But I have no sympathy nor wish to aid those who have either burned the social service bridges or have no desire to really utilize them.
/gets hit up for "gas money" at least twice a week at a QT. NO is the policy and the mandate. I love helping people, I hate being used.
[edit] Forgot to mention, some of the habitual homeless are migratory. They know of the "best places" to be and will travel there. We don't want to be that place.[/edit]
Robert,
Thanks for the reply. I think you're hitting some huge things here.
My thoughts and issues...
1. NIMBY. Who in this city is going to be cool with homeless housing moving in to their neighborhood?
2. All of the homeless agencies are in downtown and will stay. So even if there are beds somewhere else, you'll still have people coming downtown to eat breakfast at the church, lunch at the salvation army and dinner at John 3:16. Not to mention, Day Center provides all of the job related services.
3. It's inhumane to treat human beings like rodents. Just because it may not make people comfortable does not mean that it is a crime to not have a house.
4. Appropriate education is required, both for the downtown community and for law enforcement. For example, did you know that roughly 65% of Tulsa's homeless population is situationally homeless? This means that they had some sort of event happen that has temporarily put them on the street. They don't need to be shipped out of town to a big apartment or lumped in with chronic homeless people. They need assistance getting back on their feet. They aren't criminals, are not panhandling, and should not be lumped in with those who are.
5. I've heard (from Jim Norton's mouth) that the Zarrow Foundation is somehow backing this program to house the homeless, which at its core, sounds like a great humanitarian activity. The number he threw out was 4 million. 4 Million dollars to make people feel more comfortable coming downtown...Think of what 4 million would do as far as putting more cops on bikes in downtown Tulsa. It would address the discomfort issue while also addressing a crime issue.
6. Each day that John 3:16 has to wait is another day that people are sleeping in alleys and under bridges. If the mission could accommodate the numbers, these same people would be eating a hot meal, attending a nightly church service, and sleeping in a warm bed...instead of wandering around. The agencies have been in downtown long before anybody decided to spruce the place up. If you want to talk about a nuisance downtown, let's start talking about that big jail the city decided to put down there....right where the baseball stadium should be.
6. There are a few obnoxious panhandlers downtown. Assuming that all of the homeless are like these guys is wrong. They should not be given money, but instead should be sent to the mission or the salvation army, and if they refuse to leave, should be dealt with by the police. . . which leads to my proposed solution:
Give the mission their beds, host some forums downtown for downtown business owners to be educated on how we can best serve our homeless neighbors, and add more cops on bikes.
As more people come downtown, the ratio of homeless to non-homeless will shift heavily, thus reducing the emotional impact of having to look upon homelessness. Cops within sight and shouting distance also go a very long way towards alleviating discomfort. Downtown Tulsa, like all other downtowns, will have its homeless. How we as a city choose to care for them is important and should be decided early in our redevelopment process.
The downtown YMCA is moving and I believe, building new digs.
A group has been working to build "housing for the homeless" which is basically zero-rent apartments at spots spread around town. No matter what the place is, it's best to be spread out where they can be closer to possible employment.
No one is addressing the more important issue!
There is a reason that these people are homeless that goes beyond lack of education or tough luck.
I've had the "privilege" to care for many of our homeless when I was an EMT in college. Most of these people have some form of mental illness that is untreated. Some have sought treatment, but proven to be non-compliant patients. Others have substance addictions so severe that what ever ability they had to be rational members of society has been long lost.
A very very small percentage of the homeless are simply out of work or thrown into their situation by anything other than their own actions. These people are not homeless for long.
You can provide housing, blankets, meals, classes, and programs out the whazoo but you not addressing the problem. From what I know of most of these people, outside of some form of institutionalization, they will always return to the habits, and decision making processes that created their current status.
The small percentage that can pull themselves out are already doing so with the programs currently available to them. I volunteered regularly at the Day Center back in the 80s and 90s. I never witnessed any lack of aid, assistance, transportation or educational and job opportunities for those who actively sought it. It's just that most had no interest in doing the work necessary to elevate their status. Most were content to take what was given to them, sell what they could, and drink, smoke, and shoot as much as they could afford or steal from others.
They would move from place to place according to what services they could get.
I know it's sad to say, but it is an issue of "the more you give, the more they will take." Unless you find a way to address the actual problem, the underlying illness will continue unabated.
Please don't call me names for this opinion. It is simply what I have observed.
The John 3:16 Mission simply wants to help homeless that ARE ALREADY DOWNTOWN.
The Mission did get its permit/variance from the city but the city's decision is being litigated/appealed de novo (doesn't matter what happened at the city level, the judge him/herself gets to decide all over again).
I think the Tulsa World, I mean the City of Tulsa, is coming with too little too late here with their efforts to come up with ideas for spreading the homeless all accross Tulsa. Downtown has become, through decades of City policy, the hub of homeless services. Telling the John 3:16 Mission (which by the way takes ZERO of your tax dollars) that it can't more efficiently provide its services would have been crazy. Only a handful of downtown landowners and homeowners (most of whom bought their land after the Mission was there along with most all the other homeless services) are fighting the variance.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
No one is addressing the more important issue!
There is a reason that these people are homeless that goes beyond lack of education or tough luck.
I've had the "privilege" to care for many of our homeless when I was an EMT in college. Most of these people have some form of mental illness that is untreated. Some have sought treatment, but proven to be non-compliant patients. Others have substance addictions so severe that what ever ability they had to be rational members of society has been long lost.
A very very small percentage of the homeless are simply out of work or thrown into their situation by anything other than their own actions. These people are not homeless for long.
You can provide housing, blankets, meals, classes, and programs out the whazoo but you not addressing the problem. From what I know of most of these people, outside of some form of institutionalization, they will always return to the habits, and decision making processes that created their current status.
The small percentage that can pull themselves out are already doing so with the programs currently available to them. I volunteered regularly at the Day Center back in the 80s and 90s. I never witnessed any lack of aid, assistance, transportation or educational and job opportunities for those who actively sought it. It's just that most had no interest in doing the work necessary to elevate their status. Most were content to take what was given to them, sell what they could, and drink, smoke, and shoot as much as they could afford or steal from others.
They would move from place to place according to what services they could get.
I know it's sad to say, but it is an issue of "the more you give, the more they will take." Unless you find a way to address the actual problem, the underlying illness will continue unabated.
Please don't call me names for this opinion. It is simply what I have observed.
No you are very correct. ODMHSAS is woefully underfunded and it's not going to get better. We don't have a tenth of the treatment services we need for Mental Health and Substance abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
No one is addressing the more important issue!
There is a reason that these people are homeless that goes beyond lack of education or tough luck.
I've had the "privilege" to care for many of our homeless when I was an EMT in college. Most of these people have some form of mental illness that is untreated. Some have sought treatment, but proven to be non-compliant patients. Others have substance addictions so severe that what ever ability they had to be rational members of society has been long lost.
A very very small percentage of the homeless are simply out of work or thrown into their situation by anything other than their own actions. These people are not homeless for long.
You can provide housing, blankets, meals, classes, and programs out the whazoo but you not addressing the problem. From what I know of most of these people, outside of some form of institutionalization, they will always return to the habits, and decision making processes that created their current status.
The small percentage that can pull themselves out are already doing so with the programs currently available to them. I volunteered regularly at the Day Center back in the 80s and 90s. I never witnessed any lack of aid, assistance, transportation or educational and job opportunities for those who actively sought it. It's just that most had no interest in doing the work necessary to elevate their status. Most were content to take what was given to them, sell what they could, and drink, smoke, and shoot as much as they could afford or steal from others.
They would move from place to place according to what services they could get.
I know it's sad to say, but it is an issue of "the more you give, the more they will take." Unless you find a way to address the actual problem, the underlying illness will continue unabated.
Please don't call me names for this opinion. It is simply what I have observed.
Congratulations to Gasper for knowing the root of the problem. Most of these folks have mental health issues, plus drug and/or alcohol issues. Until these are addressed, you can spend un-told millions and not solve the problem.
The other is, this is a free country. No law against being homeless. You can't force someone to live in a home. You can't arrest someone simply because they choose not to live in a house or apartment.
And lets not kid ourselves. Homeless live all over town. Go to 51st and Lewis, 71st and Hwy 169, .... and they are easy to find. Many of these folks would turn down any help at John 3:16 or the Salvation Army because they have chosen their own lifestyle.
Agree with Gaspar and Wilbur for sure. But I travel a lot South of 91st and I have to say it is extremely rare to see these folks anywhere out here. Not even at the QT's. It is simply not comfortable for them. No sidewalks, no good corners to beg from and no obvious liquour stores, crack houses and pawn shops to frequent. I'm afraid it is centered outside of cake eaters country.
I appreciate the comments here and am in agreement about the lack of attention that is paid to issues like chemical dependency and mental illness.
I also agree that there are those that can not simply be helped by common job programs.
My understanding regarding the percentage of the homeless who are "chronically homeless" may be the only difference that I have. From my conversations with Steve Whitaker (exec director of John 3:16), I have come to understand that the majority of the homeless are not in fact chronic homeless.
quote:
From http://www.endhomelessness.org/section/policy/focusareas/chronic
Chronic homelessness is long-term or repeated homelessness accompanied by a disability. Many chronically homeless people have a serious mental illness like schizophrenia and/or alcohol or drug addiction. Most chronically homeless individuals have been in treatment programs, sometimes on dozens of occasions.
The federal government's definition of chronic homelessness includes homeless individuals with a disabling condition (substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, or chronic physical illness or disability) who have been homeless either 1) continuously for one whole year, or 2) four or more times in the past three years.
Research reveals that between 10 to 20 percent of homeless single adults are chronically homeless. This translates into between 150,000 to 200,000 people who experience chronic homelessness.
I don't know the facts about these percentages and I'm definitely not an expert on the homeless. Instead, I'm just one who has volunteered and who has spent some time seeking information from those who spend their time serving the homeless.
Regardless, this is the exact reason why the public could benefit from some education about the homeless. I think it would help us all to know the truth about the make-up of our homeless population. Some exposure and education could lead to an increase in appropriate support, treatment, and funding for those that serve them.
quote:
From BierGarten:
I think the Tulsa World, I mean the City of Tulsa, is coming with too little too late here with their efforts to come up with ideas for spreading the homeless all accross Tulsa. Downtown has become, through decades of City policy, the hub of homeless services. Telling the John 3:16 Mission (which by the way takes ZERO of your tax dollars) that it can't more efficiently provide its services would have been crazy. Only a handful of downtown landowners and homeowners (most of whom bought their land after the Mission was there along with most all the other homeless services) are fighting the variance.
As far as that goes, I couldn't agree more. I hope that the right decision is made regarding the mission beds. I give great kudos to Steve and those that serve with him at the mission and hope for the sake of them and of the homeless who need their services that their permit is approved.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
The federal government's definition of chronic homelessness includes homeless individuals with a disabling condition (substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, or chronic physical illness or disability) who have been homeless either 1) continuously for one whole year, or 2) four or more times in the past three years.
Research reveals that between 10 to 20 percent of homeless single adults are chronically homeless. This translates into between 150,000 to 200,000 people who experience chronic homelessness.
Wow! Perhaps nationally, but if you spend any time with our local homeless you will understand that it's more like 90 to 95% chronic homelessness.
I think some of the coastal states skew these results. You can go to Southern California or Key West Florida where there are huge populations of homeless that are simply beach bums. Sleeping on the warm sand at night and enjoying the freedom of that lifestyle. I have met many of these folks (especially in Key West) and they are in many cases intelligent, educated people that have opted out of society.
I don't think you can apply national statistics to a local population and get a fair representation.
+1 on Key West bums. Very entertaining and interesting stories. I actually have several paintings I had framed from homeless people in Key West.
/tangent
I would definitely say that most of the homeless here are the "chronically homeless".
Aside from the Y moving and not having a "living" component to it there is also the new campus that Catholic Charities is building which will be a great 1stop helping place for people who need help. Not sure what kind and extent of mental and drug abuse help they will have there though.
We are a small city and if you wanted to help the vast majority of chronically homeless here you could.
1. Get people to stop giving to panhandlers, that just allows the person to get by without going to a shelter where they can get proper help or stay on their mental health/drug, nutritional, regimines.
2. Make sure the charity organizations are together on the same page and know which person needs what kind of help and keeps working on that persons particular needs.
I refuse to believe we are so stupid that we cant come up with a way to make something work. Imo it has to be that they don't really care enough as a priority to find a way to work together on a strong, complrehensive, solution.
I think it's important that we don't let our assumptions guide us.
I am assured by those that work every day serving Tulsa's homeless that our local statistics are hardly different from the national numbers. The estimate I've been given is 30%.
Furthermore, it's important to understand that the individual functions and objectives of the different agencies are different, though not necessarily in conflict with each other. The agencies are well aware of each other and of their services and frequently refer people to the appropriate place for the needed care.
The individuals that make an impression and that tend to be seen do tend to be chronic homeless. My wife works downtown and says that she sees the same few drunk homeless guys panhandling nearly every day. While those that are most visible may be the chronic homeless, they are not indicative of the population as a whole. One could come to the conclusion that the majority of Tulsans are obnoxious and pessimistic by reading the Tulsa World message boards. The reality, as we know, is that those few are poor representatives of our population as a whole. It is understandable then, that people make assumptions about the homeless population based on their experiences with the more noticeable members of the homeless population. It's easy, based on these limited experiences, to assume that the majority of Tulsa's homeless are suffering from mental illness or addiction. I truly believe that the obnoxious few are tainting the public perception of the entire homeless population and that we do a disservice to the entire group when we make assumptions. I don't want people accusing me of being obnoxious and negative based on their reading some uneducated rants in the Tulsa World comment sections.
I hope my analogy is not too trite. I've just read several barbs thrown at the World's comment section, so I thought it might hit home here.
[:)]
As I said before, an appropriate education about our homeless would be a great first step for the community to best discern how best to deal with the issue as it affects our city. I've spoken with Steve Whitaker from John 3:16 about hosting a forum for the downtown agencies to come and share with interested members of the community about what they do, about our homeless population, and about the most appropriate ways of dealing with homelessness in our city. I think I'm going to go ahead and put it together. Steve thinks it wont be a problem to get the other agencies to send representatives. I've also talked to most of the restaurant/bar owners in the Blue Dome District and they've been supportive and have said they'd attend. Perhaps I can get Jennifer Mansell, the downtown TPD rep to come as well.
What do you guys think? You think it's worth doing?
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
My question to you all is this: The problem of homelessness is not lost on Tulsa, and its presence may in some ways affect the development of downtown. How do we best deal with issue?
My solutions will remove the bums from downtown and hopefully aid in them getting back on their feet.
1. Ban homeless shelters and facilities that aid them inside city limits.This will encourage those facilities to move outside city limits.
2. Ban panhandling or if we already have laws against pan handling then enforce them.I am not saying yank every guy off the street who is wearing shabby clothes,I am saying yank the obvious people like those holding the will work for food signs and those that come up asking people for a hand out.
3.Zone a small mostly unpopulated area outside of city limits for the homeless shelters and facilities that cater to the homeless.
4.Ban handing out money to panhandlers.If people didn't give to these people these people wouldn't panhandle.Plus there are facilities that aid that the homeless,there is absolutely no reason why you,me or anyone else should be giving these people drug,alcohol or cigarette money.Make charity groups and schools exempt from this so that they do not get their panties in a wad.
5.Set up employment agencies and organizations to help the homeless get back on their feet in those zoned homeless areas.
6.Take any homeless picked up for panhandling and drop them off in the zoned homeless area.
JR, those are not new ideas. You could look up in history just how well they worked (or didn't) and what they accomplished.
We actually had a poor farm here in Tulsa during the depression. Homeless could work on the farm for food. Bates can probably detail its existence but my depression era parents told me it was on the East side of what is now LaFortune park. Would be interesting to see how it worked.
Much of the Southeast part of the US was settled by Britain's efforts to rid itself of criminals, beggars, political enemies and other unsightly people. They weren't real supportive of the British during the subsequent revolutionary war.
New Orleans tried to move prostitution and gambling to one area of town away from decent folk back in the twenties. It failed because they didn't treat the underlying problems, simply quarantined them. And I've heard stories of Olympic sites currently and in the past moving these unwanteds out of sight.
To me, its not a question of whether we can round up undesirables and successfully compound them in rural shelters. Its identifying and treating the underlying problems. In the end it is economics, education and inhumanity that cause these problems. We need to spend our efforts on finding effective treatments for alcoholism, drug addiction and mental disorders. Current treatments aren't very effective.
+1 James, on enforcing panhandling laws. "Will work for food" really just means "give me money" along with needing "money for gas" and all the other excuses. The guys with the signs should be the easiest to enforce.
If we worked as hard to get rid of real criminals as we do of the homeless, we'd be in great shape.
The difference is that people have dehumanized homeless people, so it doesn't at first seem as inhumane as it really is to talk about "rounding up" a group of people and "dumping" them somewhere out of sight. If any of us knew more homeless people (or even one) our ideas might change. It's really hard to suggest sending someone we actually know out to the country so that their homelessness doesn't make city people uncomfortable.
It's the type of thing that one might propose with stray dogs and it's sad.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
I think it's important that we don't let our assumptions guide us.
I am assured by those that work every day serving Tulsa's homeless that our local statistics are hardly different from the national numbers. The estimate I've been given is 30%.
Furthermore, it's important to understand that the individual functions and objectives of the different agencies are different, though not necessarily in conflict with each other. The agencies are well aware of each other and of their services and frequently refer people to the appropriate place for the needed care.
The individuals that make an impression and that tend to be seen do tend to be chronic homeless. My wife works downtown and says that she sees the same few drunk homeless guys panhandling nearly every day. While those that are most visible may be the chronic homeless, they are not indicative of the population as a whole. One could come to the conclusion that the majority of Tulsans are obnoxious and pessimistic by reading the Tulsa World message boards. The reality, as we know, is that those few are poor representatives of our population as a whole. It is understandable then, that people make assumptions about the homeless population based on their experiences with the more noticeable members of the homeless population. It's easy, based on these limited experiences, to assume that the majority of Tulsa's homeless are suffering from mental illness or addiction. I truly believe that the obnoxious few are tainting the public perception of the entire homeless population and that we do a disservice to the entire group when we make assumptions. I don't want people accusing me of being obnoxious and negative based on their reading some uneducated rants in the Tulsa World comment sections.
I hope my analogy is not too trite. I've just read several barbs thrown at the World's comment section, so I thought it might hit home here.
[:)]
As I said before, an appropriate education about our homeless would be a great first step for the community to best discern how best to deal with the issue as it affects our city. I've spoken with Steve Whitaker from John 3:16 about hosting a forum for the downtown agencies to come and share with interested members of the community about what they do, about our homeless population, and about the most appropriate ways of dealing with homelessness in our city. I think I'm going to go ahead and put it together. Steve thinks it wont be a problem to get the other agencies to send representatives. I've also talked to most of the restaurant/bar owners in the Blue Dome District and they've been supportive and have said they'd attend. Perhaps I can get Jennifer Mansell, the downtown TPD rep to come as well.
What do you guys think? You think it's worth doing?
Are you saying that about 30% of the homeless population at any time here in Tulsa could be classified as chronically homeless? Though not "most" as I probably wrongly said, that is a lot. I do agree that we could very well be prejudiced in our view of who the homeless are because of what we see. Likely those approximately 30% if thats true. But if the other 70% get back on their feet in short order, then the "helping system" is perhaps working fine for them. It that other 30%, that we see, where the system is failing. Those are the "bums" we talk about, not the people who have some problems then get back on their own feet.
It would be interesting to hear some different people talk on the subject though who are familiar with it.
John 3:16 and Salvation Army, the Jail and Homeless Day Center are all within blocks of Brady Heights. Homeless people sleep around the railroad that runs over Denver and under an underpass on Denver, both within sight of the Jail. In the afternoon a large number of homeless people gather at another underpass near John 3:16. There are homeless people passing from one agency to another in this neighborhood all day. Everyday homeless people hang out inside the Central Library.
Brady Heights was Tulsa's first neighborhood and it is filled with wonderful historic homes but it is at a cross roads. You could also say downtown is at a crossroads.
I vote for candidates that support homeless issues and I am not afraid of homeless people. I know it could happen to any of us. And I am eager for a solution to this problem that has existed since Reagan's presidency.
I live in North Tulsa and I am an advocate for North Tulsa, Brady Heights and Downtown and it is crucial that the City of Tulsa ask other areas of Tulsa to share the burden of helping the homeless or risk ruining North Tulsa and Brady Heights as it struggles to improve and risk damaging downtown's renaissance.
Not sure if someone has already mentioned this, but there's a group in Tulsa working on this very issue: Building Tulsa, Building Lives. I know their approach will be based on the "housing first" philosophy, which has proven to be the cheapest and most successful approach to solving homelessness in other cities. (The point is to put people in stable settings so they can receive needed services, medication and training.)
Check out the http://www.buildingtulsabuildinglives.com/ website for more information.
I highly encourage everyone who is concerned about homelessness to check out this organization.
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
My question to you all is this: The problem of homelessness is not lost on Tulsa, and its presence may in some ways affect the development of downtown. How do we best deal with issue?
My solutions will remove the bums from downtown and hopefully aid in them getting back on their feet.
1. Ban homeless shelters and facilities that aid them inside city limits.This will encourage those facilities to move outside city limits.
2. Ban panhandling or if we already have laws against pan handling then enforce them.I am not saying yank every guy off the street who is wearing shabby clothes,I am saying yank the obvious people like those holding the will work for food signs and those that come up asking people for a hand out.
3.Zone a small mostly unpopulated area outside of city limits for the homeless shelters and facilities that cater to the homeless.
4.Ban handing out money to panhandlers.If people didn't give to these people these people wouldn't panhandle.Plus there are facilities that aid that the homeless,there is absolutely no reason why you,me or anyone else should be giving these people drug,alcohol or cigarette money.Make charity groups and schools exempt from this so that they do not get their panties in a wad.
5.Set up employment agencies and organizations to help the homeless get back on their feet in those zoned homeless areas.
6.Take any homeless picked up for panhandling and drop them off in the zoned homeless area.
Gee. I think five of the six go against the Constitution, but the other one (#5) is great!
My solution is to eat at Utica Square, Woodland Hills area, or Jenks Riverwalk. There aren't many "uncomfortable types" at the Jenks Riverwalk.
Probably not the answer you were looking for, but that is how market forces respond to issues that the city is unrealistic about.
I was thinking of an island in the river....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I was thinking of an island in the river....
The Channels?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I was thinking of an island in the river....
The Channels?
Alcatraz
I was thinking maybe people could start seeing homeless people as human beings and not as animals. Segregation based on income and housing situation is as wrong as segregation based on skin color and yet when the topic of homelessness is brought up, jokes fly around about "shipping" them off somewhere or quarantine or worse.
Imagine for a moment what it would feel like to be the recipient of that type of statement. I'm serious. Think about it for a minute. We're finally starting to get to a place in our society where people are learning that discrimination based on something as trivial as skin pigment is wrong. . . and even if they don't believe it, they have the social awareness to keep racial jokes off of message boards.
Perhaps the next step in our social evolution is to place less value on possessions so that we don't damn those that don't have as much. Are you really better than the homeless because of your job, house, car, etc? If you don't know them, how can you treat them like their situation is all their fault.
I'm a republican. I'm all for taking personal responsibility and for capitalism and for the idea than anybody can achieve anything in America. I also think America was made great by a president who thought slavery was wrong and who fought to rid our nation of the idea that some people are more valuable than others.
I would love to see people as passionate about ridding our city of crime as they are about ridding it of the homeless. I would love to see people as offended by segregation of the homeless as they are about racial or religious segregation. Other minority groups (be it race or sexual preference, heritage, or religion) in our country's history have at least had a voice. They've had a way to fight for their own rights and over time have torn down walls. The homeless don't have such a voice and are continuously spoken about as if they are worthless. This is the ultimate form of bullying and those who do it should be embarrassed. Who will be an advocate for the homeless? Who will help them to overcome?
I suppose John 3:16 will and I imagine they'd do a better job of it if people would let them expand the mission.
I agree with both of your posts. You need to address the core issue or nothing will ever be resolved. I'm sad to hear of the homeless issue in DT Tulsa. Fort Worth doesn't have near the problem Tulsa has and it's almost twice the size.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
No one is addressing the more important issue!
There is a reason that these people are homeless that goes beyond lack of education or tough luck.
I've had the "privilege" to care for many of our homeless when I was an EMT in college. Most of these people have some form of mental illness that is untreated. Some have sought treatment, but proven to be non-compliant patients. Others have substance addictions so severe that what ever ability they had to be rational members of society has been long lost.
A very very small percentage of the homeless are simply out of work or thrown into their situation by anything other than their own actions. These people are not homeless for long.
You can provide housing, blankets, meals, classes, and programs out the whazoo but you not addressing the problem. From what I know of most of these people, outside of some form of institutionalization, they will always return to the habits, and decision making processes that created their current status.
The small percentage that can pull themselves out are already doing so with the programs currently available to them. I volunteered regularly at the Day Center back in the 80s and 90s. I never witnessed any lack of aid, assistance, transportation or educational and job opportunities for those who actively sought it. It's just that most had no interest in doing the work necessary to elevate their status. Most were content to take what was given to them, sell what they could, and drink, smoke, and shoot as much as they could afford or steal from others.
They would move from place to place according to what services they could get.
I know it's sad to say, but it is an issue of "the more you give, the more they will take." Unless you find a way to address the actual problem, the underlying illness will continue unabated.
Please don't call me names for this opinion. It is simply what I have observed.
No you are very correct. ODMHSAS is woefully underfunded and it's not going to get better. We don't have a tenth of the treatment services we need for Mental Health and Substance abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
If we worked as hard to get rid of real criminals as we do of the homeless, we'd be in great shape.
Don't you mean we would be in lousy shape?Setting up soup kitchens and facilities that cater to the homeless is only a band aid.Sure it acts as a magnet to draw them to one area but it doesn't actually get rid of homelessness.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
JR, those are not new ideas. You could look up in history just how well they worked (or didn't) and what they accomplished.
I bet those ideas would relocate the homeless seeing how the only reason downtown is such a bum magnet is because of all the soup kitchens and facilities that cater to the homeless in downtown.Move the soup kitchens and other facilities that cater to the homeless and you move the homeless.
quote:
We actually had a poor farm here in Tulsa during the depression. Homeless could work on the farm for food.
As for setting up the employment agencies in those homeless zones,lots of homeless are just people trying to get back on their feet.Jobs that only pay in food will not help he homeless get back on their feet.
quote:
New Orleans tried to move prostitution and gambling to one area of town away from decent folk back in the twenties. It failed because they didn't treat the underlying problems, simply quarantined them. And I've heard stories of Olympic sites currently and in the past moving these unwanteds out of sight.
Since there is no magic cure for homelessness and homelessness can not be made illegal like gambling and prostitution it makes sense to quarantine them to another area.
If we went Mayor Taylor's plan on dealing with the homeless it would turn turn Tulsa into a bum magnet orbum capital of the country.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Gee. I think five of the six go against the Constitution, but the other one (#5) is great!
No they don't.Cities have the right to zone areas of town for specific purposes and many cities have laws against pan handling.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-22-panhandle_N.htm
Panhandling on public transportation can get you a year in jail in Medford, Ore. Telling a lie while asking for money in Macon, Ga., is against the law. In Minneapolis, begging in groups has been banned.
Cities across the USA are stepping up efforts to restrict panhandling, especially in downtown shopping areas.
In the past year, more than a dozen municipalities — from Olympia, Wash., to Orlando — have passed or strengthened such ordinances.
At least four more are close to adoption in Texas, Hawaii, North Carolina and Washington state.
Cities have enacted laws targeting the homeless for two decades, including bans on sleeping outdoors or loitering. In the past few years, the focus has turned to panhandling restrictions, said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.
That's partly because more cities are trying to redevelop their downtowns, Foscarinis said.
"No one likes to see destitute people in the city center. No one likes to walk down the street and be asked for change," she said.
That was the case in Louisville, which passed a panhandling ordinance last month.
"We've really been revitalizing downtown," city spokesman Chris Poynter said. "We have new restaurants, especially with outdoor seating. People were just over and over panhandling patrons as they sat outside."
Other cities, such as Honolulu, are worried about tourism.
"I'm trying to make sure tourists are comfortable visiting Hawaii and are not constantly accosted for money," said Honolulu City Council member Charles K. Djou, who is pushing a ban on panhandling near ATMs.
Homeless advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union consider begging to be free speech, protected by the First Amendment.
"The purpose of the laws is to drive the visible homeless out of the downtown areas," said Michael Stoops, acting director of the Washington-based National Coalition for the Homeless. "We believe that people have a right to beg, and citizens have a right to give or not to give."
Some panhandling laws have been struck down because of free speech issues. Cities find ways to get around that.
In 1996, the Oregon Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting panhandling along state roads, saying begging is protected speech.
New rules banning panhandling at intersections in Medford and Roseburg are cast as traffic ordinances.
Most new ordinances aren't blanket bans, but restrict the time, place or manner of begging, Foscarinis said.
In Portland, Ore., city officials worked in partnership with the ACLU to make sure other city services for homeless people were in place before enacting an anti-panhandling ordinance last spring.
quote:
Don't you mean we would be in lousy shape?Setting up soup kitchens and facilities that cater to the homeless is only a band aid.Sure it acts as a magnet to draw them to one area but it doesn't actually get rid of homelessness.
No, I don't mean that we would be in lousy shape. I also don't believe that I've ever asserted that soup kitchens get rid of homelessness. I do believe that the downtown agencies have programs that help people to get back on their feet and that they only serve food to meet an immediate need of a hungry human being. Again, the mistake that I keep seeing here on this thread that I will continue to take issue with is the assertion that the homeless are all chronic homeless, panhandlers, drunks, schizophrenics, and addicts. While there are some that are, the majority are not.
The types of things that are being proposed here as far as quarantine and relocation are inhumane and offensive for the reasons I've already detailed.
I want to rid the city of homelessness as badly as anyone else. I want to rid the city of homelessness because there are a large number of people who prefer to live in homes and in financial security that currently are not. It's sad and it's prevalent and those of us that have plenty have an opportunity to serve those that don't.
When you understand the truth about the make-up of our homeless population, it becomes more difficult to see them as a nuisance. Instead, the reality of the heartbreak might start to get to you and you may even be compelled to do something for them.
I know that John 3:16 is currently caring for a large number of men who have gone through terrible divorces that have left them at rock bottom. These are guys with MBAs and PHDs. These are not stumbling, stinky drunks begging for money. They are guys who's wives filed for divorce and who accused the husband of abusive behavior and filed a restraining order as a ploy to keep the children. Before you suggest moving the homeless out in to the country so they don't make you uncomfortable, imagine losing your wife, children, and home.
Some guys can't handle it and need somewhere to go for counseling and support while they put their life together.
If you've ever been to a big city, you've seen homeless people on the street. The chronic homeless are not going to leave the downtown area. They aren't going to be dismayed by panhandling laws. They are going to locate around people. Services that house and feed people may actually keep this particular group of individuals from finding other less appealing (to the general population) places to eat and sleep.
JoeMomma, I hope you don't think that my bringing up the subject of "poor farms" and "quarantines" as past attempted solutions meant that I felt they were good ideas. I was trying to point out that the problem has occurred before and these ideas have been tried. I don't see them as effective solutions.
However, most of us never see the homeless you are referring to. The ones we see are merely low class panhandlers, thieves, drug addicts and alcoholics. They hit you up at QT's, Home Depot parking lots and downtown. I doubt these guys are phd's, or down on their luck divorcees. I would be interested in knowing for sure what the percentage of financially distressed homeless vs. mental homeless there are, but regardless...they all get hungry. Just wanted to clear that up.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Shipping them off to other places worked for San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/28/BAGHUGV3AG1.DTL
[}:)]
San Francisco has the worst homeless population I have seen in this country.
JoeMommaBlake:
First, I have to reiterate that I believe a large portion of the homeless are homeless of their own accord. Drugs, alcohol, and/or refusal to conform to programs that attempt to get them out of the cycle of homelessness. The studies and facts posted in this very thread hold that to be true.
I understand that many fall through the cracks, have to leave bad situations, or otherwise end up homeless through no fault of their own - but the programs in place are capable of helping those willing to work towards independence reach that goal (not easy and I'd support these programs more, but they do exist already). They are not ALL mental cases, drug addicts, or willingly homeless. I have no illusion about that - but many are.
Those that refuse help or are otherwise homeless of their own accord do indeed have a right of existence. They have as much of a right to use the public library or to sit on a street corner as I do. They have a right to pass out on a park bench and deny the use of that area to other residents. And I have the right to ignore them and/or treat them with disdain when they tell me some over used story begging for money (need bus fair home, gas money to get to work, need medical procedure...etc.).
The problem with offering universal and unyielding help is that, as you pointed out, the homeless are no lesser a human than I am. They aren't stupid. They will go wherever the best deal is and have even less incentive to get back on their feet.
It is both socially responsible and economically important to give people a chance to claw their way up from the bottom. But if a person decides to blow off that chance or simply doesn't want it - then at what point do require them to live with that choice and all of its consequences (including being cold, hot, and hungry). If someone really needs help, I'll give it to them - but rarely is "help" in the form of a handout.
- - -
As a side note, I think most panhandling is done by people who are NOT homeless. Just people who want your money. Hell, I once saw a white van pull up next to a "will work for food" guy and open the door, another guy jumped out, handed over the sign, and they changed shifts! WHAT?
Has anyone noticed that the "gas" stories are more and more prevalent as the cost of gas rises. Some lady in a damn F-250 asked me for gas money to "get to my mothers funeral" at QT this morning. I asked her what her mother's name was, and opened my paper to check the obituaries and she said "f@#k you, I just needed me some gas monies. You can't afford a few dolla?"
I wanted to hit that person more than anyone in a long time. How many ties had her mother died this month and how many tanks of gas has she conned out of people more kind in the heart than smart int he wallet? I'm on my way to work and don't drive a V8 - THATS why I can afford gas.
ARGH!
/tangent
Cannon Fodder,
I could not agree with you more about the value of opportunity and of allowing people's consequences to serve as motivators.
We live in a country where people can and have overcome terrible things to achieve greatness.
While I am fully aware that there are some people who are flat out lazy and who choose to game the system and con others, I believe that our homeless population tends to be made up of people either who are as you put it "down on their luck" or who have a legitimate and debilitating illness.
I think it is unreasonable to think that the chronic homeless (those that tend to annoy people who have houses) do not typically have the capacity to lift themselves up by the bootstraps courtesy of good old American capitalism.
I am entrepreneur. I believe in it. I appreciate it more than I can say and if anything, the success that I've had despite my own weaknesses and shortcomings has served to further convince me that anything is possible if a person simply puts forth effort.
Many on this thread have mentioned the mental health and substance abuse programs as possible solutions for the state of chronic homelessness. I agree. If we understand mental illness and addiction and treat those that suffer from these illnesses like we would treat someone who suffers from any other chronic and debilitating disease I think our perspective would change. We can't expect those people to change their lives with serious help.
My point is this: The overwhelming majority of our homeless are either capable of being rehabilitated and of getting back on their feet through the aid of our downtown services, or they are suffering from an illness that makes that an unlikely scenario. Forcing any of them to sleep in the cold with hopes that some hard nights on the street might serve as motivation to chase a better life is simply wrong.
I will agree with you all day about the disgusting and offensive schemes of those who are simply lazy and who are attempting to con kind hearted citizens. Panhandling is wrong and there are reasons that laws against it exist. I know no one who advocates panhandling and would challenge them on it if I did.
That leads me back to a previous point. With the timely resurgence of our downtown area and the accompanying safety concerns, I think the obvious solution is more officers on bikes or horses or on foot. A policeman in the area effectively cancels out the discomfort of seeing a homeless man in the area. It makes people feel safe. I will continue to believe that the efforts to rid downtown of homeless people is at its core an effort to make everyone else more comfortable. Police do this. Not only do they do this, they actually serve to prevent real crime and are in close proximity to respond should real crime actually happen.
I think we're all in the same basic place here. Homelessness affects all of us who care to develop downtown and it is important that the issue be addressed. I will continue to make efforts to use my resources to be a part of the solution, while also working to truly care for those in need.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
I was thinking maybe people could start seeing homeless people as human beings and not as animals. Segregation based on income and housing situation is as wrong as segregation based on skin color and yet when the topic of homelessness is brought up, jokes fly around about "shipping" them off somewhere or quarantine or worse.
Imagine for a moment what it would feel like to be the recipient of that type of statement. I'm serious. Think about it for a minute. We're finally starting to get to a place in our society where people are learning that discrimination based on something as trivial as skin pigment is wrong. . . and even if they don't believe it, they have the social awareness to keep racial jokes off of message boards.
Why would it be any less humane moving the facilities that cater to the homeless outside of town?Would you want a church or some other group to set up a soup kitchen next,homeless shelter or some other facility that caters to the homeless next to your house, children's schools and the places you shop?
quote:
The homeless don't have such a voice and are continuously spoken about as if they are worthless. This is the ultimate form of bullying and those who do it should be embarrassed. Who will be an advocate for the homeless? Who will help them to overcome?
I suppose John 3:16 will and I imagine they'd do a better job of it if people would let them expand the mission.
I imagine people would let John 3:16 expand if they did it somewhere else.
Simple questions for you JoeMomma.
What part of town do you live in and how many homeless hang out on your block?
Do the families of Brady Heights have a right to safety for their wives and children?
quote:
Simple questions for you JoeMomma.
What part of town do you live in and how many homeless hang out on your block?
Do the families of Brady Heights have a right to safety for their wives and children?
Simple answers.
I live close to TU. There aren't any homeless people that I know of hanging out on my block.
I would say that the families of the Brady Heights have the same right to safety that anyone else does. Being that the homeless agencies have been where they are for decades, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be more concerned for their safety after the addition of 60 beds to John 3:16 than they were when they purchased their home. In fact, more beds means it's less likely that people loiter in the neighborhood late at night.
Let's not forget that there is a JAIL in the neighborhood. I feel like you guys think that if we got rid of the homeless agencies we'd have this awesome development opportunity in the West Brady. I would disagree. Until they move the jail and the accompanying businesses, that area is not an appealing development site. It does more to bring down the area than the homeless ever will. Why are you guys willing to move the homeless out of town and yet don't seem to have issue with the more menacing jail on the block? If crime is the issue, then start complaining about the giant facility on Denver designed to house real CRIMINALS.
quote:
from jamesrage:
Why would it be any less humane moving the facilities that cater to the homeless outside of town?Would you want a church or some other group to set up a soup kitchen next,homeless shelter or some other facility that caters to the homeless next to your house, children's schools and the places you shop?
I don't believe I've said it would be less humane to move the facilities that cater to the homeless. When I was using the term "inhumane," I was referring to comments like:
quote:
Since there is no magic cure for homelessness and homelessness can not be made illegal like gambling and prostitution it makes sense to quarantine them to another area.
James, of all of those posting on this thread, your posts seem to be the most passionate about relocation of the homeless and their agencies. Can I ask why you feel so strongly?
I'd say that relocation of the agencies is unrealistic. There are about a dozen that I know of downtown. That could get expensive, especially if you include the churches. You ask if I'd want a soup kitchen or shelter set up next to my house, kid's school, or the places I shop. You're asking that as if someone plopped some homeless agencies in to the middle of a neighborhood. There are no schools or shopping places that I know of in the west Brady. John 3:16, however, has been there for decades and I don't believe anyone is forcing people to move in to the Brady Heights. I'd say that if you're concerned with homeless people or criminals, the Brady Heights is not an ideal neighborhood for you to move to as it is close to the homeless agencies and a jail. It doesn't seem to be stopping people from developing the area, by the way.
Look, in a perfect world there would be no homelessness. People wouldn't have illness and they wouldn't have poverty and they wouldn't have needs. That's not the case though, guys.
I started this thread because I was hoping to get some legitimate suggestions for how we can best deal with these issues in our city. Instead, I feel like the conversation has gone a bad way. I'm starting to feel like everything that can be said has been said. I just want to encourage our city to be willing to learn new things about the homeless and be willing to create solutions that are realistic and that are truly caring. I think so much of it starts with appropriate education about the make-up of our homeless. I think the best solution is more officers downtown. If you have an issue with the homeless because you think they are criminals and you're worried about real crime (which includes panhandling), cops should alleviate the concern. If you have issues with the homeless because their poverty makes you uncomfortable, then you need to get over yourself. Police solve so much more than just the problems that come from the homeless and are much more inexpensive than some of the other solutions that have been proposed. I've stated this a few times and nobody's disputed the suggestion. . . So that must mean that we are all in agreement? More police? Problem solved. No relocation necessary. Let the mission have their beds. Enforce panhandling laws. Support mental health agencies. Volunteer. Send some cash or clothes or food. Keeps cops on streets....sounds great. Thanks. Problem solved. Thread done? Cool. It's been fun. See you guys around.
Conversation over? Maybe for you. But not for the people that have to live with wrong headed policy decisions. Just about every low income neighborhood in cities across the U.S. is asked to carry the burden of too many social service organizations and other things like industries that produce toxins because they have no meaningful advocates. They are powerless to fight back.
Like you I want a solution for homelessness (full employment) but I want the burden shared equally instead of piling up everything on downtown and north Tulsa.
We agree on 96% of this, I'm just asking you to go a step further.
I think there are lots of things downtown, that if we had to do over again, we wouldn't put downtown, most notably, the JAIL.
Is it ideal for you and me for bail bondsmen and public service agencies and soup kitchens and even late night hip-hop clubs etc to be downtown? Frankly, no. It's never ideal to have your business located in a neighborhood that some are afraid to visit, and those things make some people afraid. My solution is more geared at alleviating the mostly unfounded fear of the public than removing the things that scare them. I think it's just a difference in philosophy as far as how to solve the issue, which I think is fear.
It's unrealistic, impractical, and even wrong to relocate most of these things at this point. These services also exist in the downtowns of every city I've been to so it's not like Tulsa is at a marked disadvantage as it tries to compete with other cities. I will continue to state that the best solutions regarding these services and businesses is a proactive plan to manage the characteristics of them that are not ideal for a growing downtown. An educated and involved community can make such a difference. Imagine Tulsa being known as a loving and caring community that does a better job than any city anywhere at serving those in need and restoring their lives. While we're imagining, imagine what a visible police presence downtown would do to alleviate fear and even threat.
This is so much bigger than whatever inconvenience it poses. It's an opportunity to do what's right and I truly hope that we don't miss it. If it becomes a human rights issue, you will find me fighting on the side of the homeless. As a whole, they've done nothing wrong, yet they are being treated like they have. I think this has the potential to be a very negative thing as far as human rights are concerned and I hope that it never comes to that. Our city has made that mistake once and it's left a terrible scar.
quote:
HT wroteLike you I want a solution for homelessness (full employment)
We are already at "full employment" in Tulsa. Full employment is somewhere between 3% and 6.4% depending on who you ask. Tulsa is below 4% unemployment, thus, we are at "full employment."
Thank you for offering an alternative to the "F*** the Homeless Movement" that originated here and made national news about three years ago. While you and I continue to disagree about concentrating services in one general area, I appreciate your spirit and I understand your argument. I hear there are a number of organizations benefiting down and out folks in the Whittier Square area not far from you.
There are probably folks here who are knowledgeable about a local foundation's efforts to rid Tulsa of homelessness. I forget the details. I expect that after BOK Arena opens, the city will encourage this foundation to help cut down the numbers of homeless people on the north side of downtown near BOK Arena, mostly to gussy up the district to make it more acceptable to tourists. Maybe some real solutions for homeless folks will be the result. I hope so.
Meanwhile I will also hope for a general consciousness raising about dumping on low income neighborhoods like North Tulsa.
The "F the homeless" story that ran in the national media is one of the worst examples of media sensationalism I've encountered. There were some wild misrepresentations in that one -- I think they even tried to link it to the Race Riot.
Maybe this is sort of behavior will be coming to our downtown:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/83643.html
I postulate that a homeless population will expand to meet the services available to it. Build more beds and you will get more homeless. Give away more free meals and you will get more homeless.
I base this theory on the fact that homeless populations are transient (hence the term transient). They typically move to where they can acquire services.
If you want to end homelessness in Tulsa, it's easy. Shut down all of the shelters and soup kitchens. Offer free Greyhound tickets to Oklahoma City. [;)]
Now this thread is done!