Homelessness Downtown

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

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.

[jamesrage]

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.

[jamesrage]

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.

[jamesrage]

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.

[JoeMommaBlake]

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.

[waterboy]

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.

[deinstein]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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

[JoeMommaBlake]

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.

[jamesrage]

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.

[Hometown]

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?

[JoeMommaBlake]

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.

[Hometown]

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.

[JoeMommaBlake]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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."